Ministry review of the North Dundas waste management plan environmental assessment

Summary of our review

Who

Township of North Dundas (Township)

What

The Township is proposing to expand the Boyne Road Landfill site to provide an additional 417,700 cubic metres of waste disposal capacity for solid non-hazardous waste to service the Township of North Dundas.

The undertaking will involve a primarily horizontal expansion of the south side of the landfilling site, which would increase the landfilling area by 3.8 hectares.

When

The environmental assessment (EA) was submitted on February 2, 2023. The comment period for the EA ended March 24, 2023.

Where

The Boyne Road Landfill is located at 12620 Boyne Rd, Winchester, Ontario.

Why

The Boyne Road Landfill has reached its approved capacity of 395,000 cubic metres in 2014. Since that time, the ministry has permitted the site to continue accepting waste while the Township developed a long-term waste management strategy and fulfilled EA requirements.

The Township is seeking to expand the Boyne Road Landfill by 417,700 cubic metres to continue providing residential and some industrial, commercial and institutional waste disposal services for an additional 25 years from 2023 to 2048.

Conclusions

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

The EA demonstrated that the Township will be able to meet the objectives set out in its ToR.

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 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 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.

On July 1, 2020, the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks approved the Township’s ToR. The ToR identified the alternatives that would be assessed, how the Township would assess alternatives and environmental effects as well as consultation with the public and Indigenous communities during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the initial project description, rationale for the undertaking and description of the environment which were further elaborated in the EA. A consultation plan was developed as part of the ToR to be considered through the preparation of the EA.

1.2 Environmental assessment

After receiving the Minister’s approval on the ToR, the Township proceeded to carry out the EA, 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.

The Township made a draft EA available to the public, government agencies and Indigenous communities on May 27, 2022, and requested comments on the draft EA by June 24, 2022. On February 2, 2023, the Township submitted the Township of North Dundas waste management plan 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 March 24, 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 the proponent time to respond and address 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 five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The review comment period allows the GRT, public, and Indigenous communities 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 can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A notice of completion of the review was 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.

2. The proposed undertaking

2.1 Background

The Boyne Road Landfill (landfill) is located midway between two main population centres (the villages of Winchester and Chesterville) within the Township of North Dundas at 12620 Boyne Rd, Winchester, Ontario (see Figure 1). The landfill is situated on 97.13 hectares (ha) of land owned by the Township and has an approved disposal area of 8.1 ha on the property. The Township, through its Waste Management Department, provides curbside collection and disposal services for all residential and some institutional, commercial, and industrial waste.

The landfill has been operating since 1965 and is the only operational waste disposal site in the Township. The current environmental compliance approval A482101 has an approved waste disposal capacity of 395,000 cubic metres and the five-year rolling average annual fill rate is 14,123 cubic metres. In 2013, as part of an environmental compliance approval application update it was recognized that the landfill was in an overfill situation. At the end of 2014 the volume of waste in place was estimated to be approximately 533,780 cubic metres representing an overfill of approximately 139,000 cubic metres. Since this time emergency environmental compliance approval amendments have been approved for the continued use of the landfill site. One of the conditions of the emergency environmental compliance approval was that the Township undertake an evaluation of waste management alternatives and identify a preferred course of action to provide a long-term waste management strategy for the Township. The landfill site is estimated to have approved disposal capacity to operate through 2023 and into 2024.

2.2 Purpose

The Township proposes to increase the disposal capacity by 417,700 cubic metres for solid non-hazardous waste at the Boyne Road Landfill site. The Township identified an opportunity to continue providing residential and some industrial, commercial, and institutional waste disposal for the Township from 2023 to 2048 for an additional 25 years.

2.3 Study areas

The EA primarily used three study areas: wider study area, site-vicinity study area and site study area to identify and assess potential impacts to the environment. The wider study area encompasses the Township of North Dundas. The wider study area is intended to capture components of the environment that extend beyond the site-vicinity area such as the socio-economic, or natural environment that may not be contained within the site vicinity area. The site-vicinity area extends approximately 500 metres and beyond the Boyne Road Landfill (landfill) site in all directions to capture areas where potential direct effects are expected. The site study area includes the Township owned lands at the landfill site.

2.4 Local environment

The Township of North Dundas is located south of the City of Ottawa, within the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry, which is largely comprised of rural areas and agricultural land. The Boyne Road Landfill site is located south of Boyne Road approximately 1.5 kilometres east of the Village of Winchester. The landfill site is located in a rural agricultural setting with few residences or notable features in the immediate vicinity. The nearest residence is 500 metres away and approximately 5 residences are located within 1 kilometre radius of the landfill site.

The landfill site is in an area of flat topography. The lands north and east are vacant vegetated lands and the lands south and west of the site are existing agricultural fields. Surface water drainage in the vicinity of the landfill site is a network of constructed drains, primarily the Volks Municipal Drain on the north side of Boyne Road that flows east and discharges into Black Creek approximately 1.5 kilometres east of the landfill site area. Surface water runoff from the landfill area drains into a perimeter ditch which then discharges to the roadside ditch at Boyne Road via culvert to the Volks Municipal Drain. Within the overall flat area surrounding the landfill site the regional groundwater flows north but may vary temporarily or seasonally.

The landfill operates as a natural attenuation site with no engineered liner or leachate collection system and relies on the natural setting (silt/clay surface soils with sandy/silt base soils) and contaminant attenuation zone lands to protect off-site groundwater. Over the years, the Township has acquired lands and easements around the landfill site to ensure that off-site groundwater quality complies with the ministry’s water quality guidelines for landfills (Reasonable Use Guideline). Contaminant attenuation zones are located to the north and west of the disposal area and buffer land is located to the east and south of the landfill disposal area.

2.5 Description of the proposed undertaking

The proposed landfill expansion design is a horizontal expansion on the south side of the existing landfill footprint that will provide additional capacity of 417,700 cubic metres to meet anticipated waste disposal in the Township of North Dundas over a 25-year planning period. This includes considering existing and anticipated proposed diversion activities associated with the site which are described in section 4 of this Review. The horizontal expansion will add an additional 3.8 hectares (ha), for a total landfill footprint of 11.9 ha. The total expanded landfill capacity for waste and daily cover including the additional 417,700 cubic metres provided by the expansion, is 1,060,750 cubic metres. The height of the expansion will be approximately 15 metres above the existing ground surface. Please refer to Table 10-1 in Section 10.2.5 of the EA for a depiction of the alternative methods of landfill site expansion.

The landfill is estimated to receive 80% of its waste from residential sources and 20% from industrial, commercial, and institutional sources, equating to approximately 348 kilograms per person/year. Based on residential development applications and approvals, the population is expected to increase 3% annually between 2024 and 2031. The Township has stated that as the population grows, so will waste disposal needs, resulting in the Township requesting an additional landfill capacity of 417,700 cubic metres. The average annual fill rate is expected to be 16,200 cubic metres through the 2023 to 2048 planning period.

The landfill will continue to operate as a natural attenuation site. The proposed expansion design will include an approximately 1-metre-thick pad of imported permeable fill material (sandy material) above the existing ground surface to provide a base for waste disposal. Permeable fill minimizes the potential for the development of a leachate mound in the waste and lateral leachate seeps around the perimeter of the expanded disposal footprint.

A landfill gas collection and control system is not required for the landfill site as the total waste disposal capacity with expansion does not exceed the 1.5 million cubic metre threshold set out in O. Reg. 232/98 under the Environmental Protection Act. The air quality impact assessment undertaken for the proposed expansion indicates that a collection system is not needed to comply with allowable air quality provincial requirements. Existing methane detectors in place at the landfill site will continue to be maintained throughout the expansion operating period.

The landfill site currently has no stormwater management quality or quantity control system in place except for the existing perimeter ditch that collects and conveys runoff to the Volks Municipal Drain ditch along the north side of Boyne Road. The expansion proposes a wetland type stormwater management facility that will be constructed at the northeast corner of the landfill site on the south side of Boyne Road and adjacent to the landfill. The stormwater facility will outlet at the same existing perimeter ditch outlet. A ditch is also proposed on the north face of the existing landfill to capture the majority of the existing disposal area that currently drains directly to the Boyne Road roadside ditch and will connect to the proposed stormwater management facility. The existing landfill perimeter ditch is proposed to be reconfigured and extended around the perimeter of the expansion footprint.

The landfill expansion will not include any changes or modifications to existing site accesses and entrances or existing infrastructure on the site. The landfill site has one access point onto Boyne Road. The access is a single lane entering and a single lane exiting the site. The main haul route to the landfill is Boyne Road, either directly from the Village of Winchester to the west or from the Village of Chesterville to the east using County Road 7. A trip generation analysis determined the landfill expansion would generate a combined entering and existing vehicle trip total of 41 trips during the peak weekday hours. Expected landfill site trips following the landfill expansion are expected to have a minor impact on the operation of surrounding intersections with no road modifications required.

The landfill provides waste diversion services for the Township including recyclable materials (metal, plastic, paper, cardboard) and tire recycling as well as the collection of household hazardous waste (HHW) and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) that is exported to authorized processing facilities. The Township has a recycling materials facility at the landfill site that prepares collected recyclable materials for transfer to an off-site recycling facility. The recyclable materials collection facility as well as the HHW and WEEE temporary storage areas are located at the landfill site with the HHW facility also serving the Township of South Dundas. The existing waste diversion facilities will continue to operate on the landfill site with estimated diversion rates of 28% and 33% by 2025 and 2030 respectively.

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 government review team (GRT) that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry has concluded that the EA followed the framework and commitments outlined in the ToR and meets the components of the EAA.

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

3.1.2 Consultation

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

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

• establishing a project contact list
• meetings with agency and municipal stakeholders, and Indigenous communities
• hosting three virtual public open houses
• circulating notices via local newspapers and mail outs
• maintaining a project website with EA documentation
• publishing the draft EA for a comment period from May 27, 2022, onwards and requesting comments on the draft EA by June 24, 2022

The Township documented its consultation activities adequately in the EA and Record of Consultation. Section 4.0 of the EA provides an overview of the consultation activities, with the complete consultation documented in the Record of Consultation Volume 4 of the EA.

Following submission of the EA to the ministry, the ministry undertook consultation in accordance with the EAA, beginning on January 23, 2023, to March 24, 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 the Township for a response. A summary of the comments received along with the Townships responses is included in Table 1 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 Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM), and South Nation Conservation (SNC) provided comments throughout the EA process, on EA work plans and on the draft EA.

At that time, comments provided by MNRF on the draft EA reminded the proponent that relocation of fish or wildlife outside the work area will require additional authorization under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. MCM sought consistency in referencing required Stage 1 archaeological assessment approval and direct statements in the EA that the potential for archaeological resources, built heritage, or cultural heritage landscapes in the project study area is low. The Township updated the EA in response to some of MCM’s comments.

MECP provided comments specific to wastewater, waste, air, hydrology, source protection, species at risk, and resource recovery. MECP’s technical comments on the draft EA requested additional information to clarify the approach used to estimate the proposed volumetric disposal waste needs and how leachate discharge will be prevented and controlled relative to impacts to surface water features. The Township provided a revised draft EA to the ministry for review to address these comments. The ministry was satisfied with the changes.

SNC provided comments regarding the proposed permitter ditch and Volks Municipal Drain, contingency actions for the groundwater monitoring plan as well as the need for additional work to be completed to understand the potential risk to municipal wells. The ministry provided an extension to the timeline to complete the Ministry Review to allow the proponent to work with SNC to address the issues raised. A summary of the comments received on the draft EA is provided in Table 4-8 of the EA. Original correspondence can be found in the Volume 4 — Record of Consultation.

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

Public consultation

The proponent used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including public notices, technical bulletins, a public information centre (virtual and in-person), social media and website postings and direct community engagement via mail-outs, phone calls, and emails. The public information centre was held on April 7, 2022. A summary of consultation with public stakeholders during the preparation of the EA is included in Section 4.0 of the EA.

The Notice of Commencement for the EA was issued on September 10, 2020. The Township made the draft EA and its supporting documents available on the Township’s website to members of the public, agencies, and Indigenous communities for comment from May 27, 2022, onwards and requested comments by June 24, 2022. Hard copies of the draft EA were distributed to Indigenous communities, the MECP, the Township of North Dundas Winchester Public Library and the Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry Office for public viewing. The Township received two comments from members of the public on the draft EA report with administrative questions related to how the planning period was selected, cost and census estimates, data regarding waste diversion and compost pick-up service.

The Notice of Submission of the final EA was issued on February 2, 2023, and was circulated to the project contact list as well as posted on the Township’s website. The ministry did not receive comments from the public.

Indigenous community consultation

In addition to the requirement in the EAA that the proponent consult with interested persons, the ministry delegated to the proponent the procedural elements of the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous communities 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
• Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
• Huron-Wendat Nation

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

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

Additional engagement activities were undertaken during the preparation of the EA to obtain input from the identified Indigenous communities including follow-up calls and emails to communities to ensure receipt of materials. A meeting via phone call was held with Huron Wendat Nation and the proponent on April 5, 2022, and a more in-depth teleconference occurred on April 21, 2022.

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

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and Huron Wendat Nation identified a low level of concern for the project but requested that they be included in any archaeological aspects of the EA process. The Township provided copies of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (AA) report and provided an email summary of the outcome and recommendation made in the Stage 1 AA to all communities. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne concurred with the outcome of the Stage 1 AA report that no further work is needed and indicated that they had no further comments on the project. The Algonquins of Ontario acknowledged receipt of the Stage 1 AA and requested to continue forwarding project correspondence to a new contact. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne emailed the ministry during the EA comment period that they have no further comments on the project.

During the April 21, 2022, teleconference between Huron Wendat Nation and the Township, questions arose regarding waste diversion, if the stormwater pond and replacement perimeter ditch will be vegetated with native plant species and whether excavations associated with the stormwater pond and ditch will be appropriately monitored for archeological artifacts. The Township provided answers to the Huron Wendat Nation’s questions during the teleconference and in a follow-up email. The Huron Wendat Nation indicated by phone and email during the EA comment period that they have no further comments on the project.

Indigenous community engagement is detailed in Section 4.6.10 of the EA and further documented in Appendix C8 of Volume 4 Record of Consultation.

No comments from Indigenous communities were received on the final EA.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

The EAA requires that the proponent consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA, provide a description of consultation activities undertaken by the proponent, and document consultation results. Overall, the ministry believes that the Township provided sufficient opportunities for public, stakeholder, government agency, and Indigenous consultation during the preparation and finalization of the EA. The Township 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. The Township carried out an EA to identify and address ways to continue providing waste disposal services over a 25-year planning period because the existing Boyne Road Landfill is at 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 Description of the environment in the study areas

Section 5.0 (Waste Management Plan Study Area and Existing Conditions) and Section 9.0 (Description of the Environmental Potentially Affects for Landfill Expansion) of the EA provides a description of the environmental components of the site and the local and regional study area as previously described (see Figure 1), to establish a baseline for comparison for the ‘alternatives to’ and ‘alternative methods’. The environmental components and subcomponents described in the EA are:

• atmosphere (air quality and noise)
• geology and hydrogeology (groundwater)
• surface water
• biology/natural environment (aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems)
• cultural heritage resources (archaeology, cultural heritage landscapes, built resources)
• land use planning (current and future)
• agriculture
• socio-economic (local economy, community residents, visual)
• transportation
• design and operations (technical considerations)

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.

3.2.2 Alternatives to the undertaking

The Township prepared its EA in accordance with the requirements under sections 6(2)(a) and 6.1(2) of the EAA. As part of those requirements the EA was ‘unfocused’ resulting in the Township developing and assessing ‘alternatives to’ long term waste management and ‘alternative methods’ of increasing waste disposal capacity over a 25-year planning period. The EA prepared by the Township developed and assessed ‘alternatives to’ long term waste management.

As part of the EA process set out in the approved ToR, the Township is required to develop a reasonable range of ‘alternatives to’ long term waste management in the Township. The ToR discussed ‘alternatives to’ at a conceptual level by looking at ways to provide additional waste disposal capacity for the Township. This was carried forward into the EA and discussed and reviewed in more detail. The Township assessed six reasonable waste management alternatives for a small rural municipality, including:

• existing landfill site closure and export waste for disposal
• landfill site expansion
• existing landfill site closure and establish new landfill site in the township
• existing landfill site closure and alternative waste management technologies
• enhanced waste diversion
• do nothing

The proponent provided a rationale for the alternatives proposed and considered as part of its review of the environment affected, advantages and disadvantages and net effects, as is required under the EAA.

The review of the above noted options resulted in landfilling being selected as the preferred “alternative to”. As part of its consideration of landfilling as an option, the proponent reviewed through a screening process whether a new landfill site could be selected as the Boyne Road Landfill is the only waste disposal site owned by the Township. This review concluded that an appropriate site size could not be identified to accommodate expected waste needs in accordance with the Townships land use policies and as such the search for a new site was abandoned consistent with the ToR (Appendix I of EA — New Landfill Site Selection Assessment).

The 2015 Waste Management Alternatives Evaluation previously assessed exporting waste to other privately owned waste disposal sites nearby. There are two privately owned waste disposal sites nearby. The Green for Life’s (GFL’s) Moose Creek Landfill in North Stormont near Moose Creek and Waste Management’s Ottawa (Carp Road) Landfill in the western portion of Ottawa. The GFL site has uncertainty related to remaining capacity but in 2020 GFL commenced an EA for landfill expansion. It is possible that the GFL site will have waste disposal capacity in the future to accept the Townships waste however, GFL’s tipping fees have increased and as such the Townships expenditure predictions have increased when considering exporting waste to the GFL site. The Carp Road site is currently inactive and has not proceeded to construct additional disposal capacity for the Township to be able to export waste.

Following this, the proponent identified landfill expansion with continued waste diversion as it preferred option and chose the ‘Landfill Site Expansion’ of the existing Boyne Road Landfill as it maintains Township control over waste management and associated costs over time by reusing existing infrastructure. Further, there is land available for the expansion as well as suitable soils for landfilling.

3.2.3 Assessment of alternative methods

Following the selection of the alternative to expand the existing Boyne Road Landfill, the Township evaluated a number of ‘alternative methods’ of carrying out the proposed landfill expansion to accommodate 25 years of waste disposal capacity. The Township considered various horizontal and vertical landfill footprint locations and designs for expanding the existing landfill in Section 10.0 (Description of and Rationale of the ‘Alternative Methods’ of Landfill Expansion) of the EA. The options for expanding the landfill to provide additional waste disposal capacity were:

• Alternative 1 — combined horizontal and vertical expansion with larger east and west buffers
• Alternative 2 — combined horizontal and vertical expansion with larger south buffer
• Alternative 3 — primarily horizontal expansion

The Township evaluated the impacts of each alternative method based on the environmental components listed above. The Township predicted the net effects from each alternative method, then compared the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative method to determine the preferred option. The do-nothing scenario was also considered as a benchmark comparison associated with the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative method and proceeding with the preferred alternative or undertaking. As a result, the ministry gained an understanding of proceeding with the landfill expansion verses a do-nothing scenario.

Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred expansion alternative for the Boyne Road Landfill, as it has the least potential for adverse effects on the natural environment and surface water quantity as well as having the lowest capital cost for implementation.

The other ‘alternative methods’ assessed resulted in adverse impacts to the natural environment (aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems) and had higher capital costs.

3.2.4 Assessment of environmental effects

The Township describes the potential impacts, best practices and mitigation measures, and the residual (net) effects of the overall landfill expansion in Section 13.0 (Impact Assessment of the Preferred Undertaking) of the EA. The prediction of potential effects considered the environmental components that were used in evaluating the ‘alternatives to’ and ‘alternative methods’ in the EA.

The biology assessment considered impacts of the landfill expansion on aquatic and terrestrial systems as well as mitigation measures. Potential residual effects to fish passage and habitat are anticipated due to infilling and relocating the perimeter ditch as well as temporary flow structures in the Volks Municipal Drain. These impacts are predicted to be of short duration and are anticipated to have minor interruption on key life processes of fish if applicable mitigation measures are carried out. The improvements to the Volks Municipal Drain quality as a result of the proposed stormwater management pond is expected the outweigh the loss of fish access to seasonal, low-quality habitat within the perimeter ditch. The landfill expansion is predicted to have minimal direct impacts on naturally occurring vegetation and terrestrial ecosystems, including species at risk.

An assessment on the environmental effects on the atmosphere (air quality, odour, and noise) was completed and the impacts were determined to be minimal and not significant to the nearby receptors. Transportation impacts were considered through the EA, and it was determined that the preferred undertaking for landfill expansion will not significantly change local traffic around the surrounding the landfill.

Source water protection

The Township’s consideration of source water protection is described in Section 13.2.4 of the EA. The project is in the Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Region. The landfill site expansion is not located in any groundwater or source water protection zones with a vulnerability score of 8 or higher and is not a significant drinking water threat. However, the local EA study area falls within a wellhead protection area with a vulnerability score of 4, intake protection zone with a vulnerability score of 7, highly vulnerable aquifer and a groundwater recharge area and is subject to Raisin-South Source Protection Plan policies. The proposed landfill expansion is not identified as a significant drinking water threat and not predicted to have an impact on the Winchester, Chesterville or nearby residential wells due to its geological location, local hydrogeology, and remote location from residents. The ministry’s Source Protection Programs Branch is satisfied with the information provided in the EA.

Climate change impacts

The Township is planning the landfill expansion in a manner that considers future changes in climate and the impacts a changing climate could have on the landfill expansion. The ‘Considering Climate Change in the Environmental Assessment Process’ (MECP, 2019) was used as a guide for incorporating measures in the landfill expansion design that 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 are considered in the EA.

The potential effects of the landfill expansion and generation of increased greenhouse gas emissions produced from landfill gas, on-site transportation and stationary combustion emissions were estimated using the federal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program and Ontario’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Quantification, Reporting and Verification regulation. Emissions from the existing and proposed landfill expansion would have a negligible contribution to both provincial and federal emissions and therefore a negligible effect on climate change.

Potential impacts from climate change related to precipitation were considered in terms of the size/design of the stormwater management components (ditches and the stormwater management pond) and are predicted to be capable of controlling increased discharge conditions and flooding events. Containment Attenuation Zone lands are predicted to withstand increased precipitation, leachate generation from increased precipitation events and perform in accordance with the Reasonable Use Guideline. The project is not expected to have any significant impacts on the environment due to climate change considerations.

Cumulative effects

The Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (2014) encourages proponents to include information about the potential cumulative effects of the project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities. The Township committed to undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the selected preferred alternative in the ToR. A cumulative impact assessment was included in the EA and determined that there are no known future planned land uses in the landfill site vicinity. The only potential overlap with those from the proposed landfill expansion is farming operations. Considering this overview of the present and foreseeable situation, the proponent concluded that there are no apparent potential adverse cumulative effects on the environment associated with the proposed expansion of the landfill. Government agency reviewers considered cumulative impacts. South Nation Conservation (SNC) raised concerns related to potential cumulative impacts to municipal water supply wells in the vicinity of the landfill site during the EA comment period. The proponent responded to SNC concerns with a technical memorandum that indicated groundwater monitoring undertaken at the Boyne Road Landfill site has not indicated any cumulative impacts from water pumping or landfill leachate impacts to the nearby municipal wells. Further details on comments submitted by SNC and the proponent’s response can be found in Section 3.3 of the review. There are no outstanding concerns from stakeholders regarding existing cumulative adverse impacts in the site study area or in the local study area from past and/or present activities that are anticipated with proposed mitigation measures and commitments to future work that have been provided.

3.2.5 Monitoring and commitments

Section 16.0 of the EA describes environmental effects monitoring programs and activities proposed used 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 is groundwater and surface water programs as well as an additional stormwater pond discharge monitoring program. Commitments related to the pre-construction, construction, operation, closure, and post-closure of the landfill are listed in Table 18.2 of Section 18 (Summary of Commitments) of the EA.

3.2.6 Ministry conclusions on the EA process

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

3.3 Comments on the undertaking

3.3.1 Key issues

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

Government review team

The Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) provided the following comments to the MECP:

• Please remove references to provincial approvals for built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. As this project does not contain provincially owned lands, or property with provincial heritage protections, there are no relevant provincial approvals. In Ontario, the vast majority of protected heritage properties (which would require approvals for alterations) are identified and protected by the municipality under the Ontario Heritage Act
• MCM recommends that the discussion of archaeology in section 9.7.1 should conclude with a statement that the Stage 1 archaeological assessment determined that the study area has low potential to contain archaeological resources and section 9.7.2 should provide a concluding statement to say there are no known or potential built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes in the study area
• A Stage 1 archaeological assessment (AA) and report (under Project Information Form number P1107-0045-2021 is under review by this ministry. Please note archaeological concerns have not been addressed until reports have been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports where those reports recommend that the archaeological assessment of the project area is complete; and all archaeological sites identified by the assessment are either of no further cultural heritage value or interest (as per Section 48(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act) or that mitigation of impacts has been accomplished through an avoidance and protection strategy

The Township noted MCM’s comments and in response clarified that the recommended statements related to archaeological resources as well as potential built and cultural heritage resources are in Section 13 (Impact Assessment of the Preferred Undertaking). The Township submitted an expedited review of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment report in March 2023. On May 22, 2023, the Stage 1 archaeological assessment report was deemed compliant by MCM and was entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. MCM indicated that no further archaeological assessments are required for the study area.

South Nation Conservation (SNC) provided comments related to the adequacy of the information provided in the EA regarding long-term protection of the Chesterville municipal wells. The SNC concerns were the following:

• potential for the landfill expansion to impact the Chesterville municipal wells
• future increased municipal well pumping rates and the potential to impact the migration of leachate from the expanded landfill
• potential cumulative impact of both Winchester and Chesterville municipal wells supplying water in the vicinity of the site
• availability of alternative municipal water supplies if the municipal wells are impacted by the landfill

A response to SNC’s comments to address these concerns was prepared by the proponent and provided to the MECP and SNC on April 19, 2023. The SNC and Township met on May 2, 2023, to discuss the comments and resolve the outstanding concerns. Both the SNC and Township recognized that the proposed landfill expansion is in a wellhead protection area for the Chesterville wells as set out in the Source Protection Plan and that both the existing and proposed expansion comply with source protection policies that does not identify the landfill as significant drinking water threat. A memorandum was submitted to the ministry on May 17, 2023, that summarized the May 2, 2023, meeting between the proponent and SNC. The memorandum summarized the studies undertaken during the EA study related to source water protection. The SNC provided a letter approving the memorandum on May 16, 2023, indicating that the SNC accepts the technical information provided by the Township that is included in the EA report regarding the concerns related to the Chesterville municipal wells and the proposed landfill expansion.

The memorandum included technical information that addressed SNC’s concerns regarding the potential interaction between increased well pumping and inducing leachate-impacted groundwater flow towards the Chesterville municipal wells. It concluded that pumping rates at the Chesterville municipal well are sustained well below their maximum rated capacity and that it is not possible or proposed by the Township to increase the pumping rates of the Chesterville wells. Groundwater monitoring at the Boyne Road Landfill site has not shown impacts to groundwater levels as a result of water pumping at the Chesterville wells or that there are leachate effects on groundwater quality within a limited distance of the disposal area.

Additional water supply to the Township of North Dundas, specifically Winchester, is in progress through a Municipal Class EA. The identified preferred option is to pursue a combination of new groundwater wells and a connection to the water distribution system in South Dundas to meet the Township’s long term water supply demand. If groundwater monitoring at the landfill site was to identify potential leachate impacts on groundwater, the Municipal Class EA process has identified an alternative water supply solution to replace the use of the Chesterville wells.

The landfill is required to remain in compliance with the reasonable use guideline in terms of leachate effects on off-site groundwater quality at the boundary of its property or a contaminant attenuation zone (CAZ). The amended landfill environmental compliance approval will require the Township to implement contingency measures before a reasonable use guideline is exceeded in groundwater at the property of CAZ boundaries which is approximately 3 kilometres from the Chesterville wells.

3.3.2 Conclusion

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

4. Other considerations

4.1.1 Diversion

As part of the EA, the Township evaluated its waste diversion services on site that will continue to operate and include recyclable materials (metal, plastic, paper, cardboard) and tire recycling as well as the collection of household hazardous waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment that is stored until exported to authorized processing facilities. The recycling materials facility prepares collected recyclable materials for transfer to an off-site recycling facility. In addition, a pilot program for leaf and yard waste is currently being provided with two collection events per year. Wood and brush are also accepted with planned grinding for use as alternative daily cover of the landfill.

The Township completed a Waste Diversion Study (2020, revised 2022) documented in Volume 3 Appendix J of the EA that identified, evaluated, and selected a preferred waste diversion program. The Waste Diversion Study identified a combination of waste diversion options to improve diversion in the Township consisting of:

• backyard composting for source separated organics
• dual stream recycling program
• curbside collection of leaf and yard waste
• composting of leaf and yard waste at the Boyne Road Landfill site
• existing and new waste management policies: bag limit policies

The Township’s diversion rate, as reported in 2017 and 2018 to Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority was approximately 23% and similar in 2019 and 2020. The Waste Diversion Study estimated that the Township can achieve a residential diversion rate of 28% and 33% by 2025 and 2030, respectively, and maintain this rate going forward with the enhanced diversion program. The gradual increase in waste diversion has been applied only to the residential component of the waste stream and consists of approximately 80% of the total waste received for landfilling.

5. Summary of the ministry review

The review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the North Dundas Waste Management Plan 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
• preparation of an Indigenous consultation plan for project implementation 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, the Township will need to obtain other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 17.0 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

• amendment to the site’s waste disposal sites environmental compliance approval under the Environmental Protection Act
• environmental compliance approval for the proposed storm water management system under the Ontario Water Resources Act
• Drainage Act permit and approval by the Conservation Authority for the stormwater management system and alterations to a portion of the Volks 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 September 8, 2023, 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:

Director
Environmental Assessment Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Re: North Dundas Waste Management Plan Environmental Assessment
Attention: Jordan Hughes, 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 locations:

Township of North Dundas Office
636 St. Lawrence Street
Winchester, Ontario

Winchester Public Library
547 St. Lawrence Street
Winchester, 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 (E1-E33) 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

Section 8 of the EA provides a summary of the environmental component work plans. Work plans described the general scope of technical and field studies for each environmental component, for comparison of ‘alternative methods’ and prediction of environmental effects for the preferred “alternative method’ of landfill expansion.

Table 8-2 in section 8 of the EA summarizes the work plans for the EA including the reports, studies and surveys conducted for each environmental component.

3. 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 19 of the EA is a list of references and works cited for the EA.

4. 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, Reg. 334, s. 2 (1); O. Reg. 263/07, s. 1.

Analysis of the EA

Figure 1-1 (Study Location Map) in section 1.3.1 of the EA shows the Boyne Road Landfill site. Figure 1-2 (Boyne Road Landfill Site Plan) in section 1.3.2 of the EA shows the current layout of the Boyne Road Landfill.

Figures 10-1 through 10-6 in section 10.1 of the EA show site plans and cross sections for each Alternative Methods 1, 2 and 3. Table 10-1 in section 10.2.3 (Summary of Alternative Methods) provides a comparative summary of the ‘Alternative Methods’ of landfill expansion, as well as information on the currently approved landfill.

Figures 49-1 to 9-12 in section 9 of the EA show the existing environmental conditions potentially affect for landfill expansion (e.g. groundwater, ecological land classification, natural heritage features, etc.) in relation to the project site location.

Problem / opportunities

1. Identify an existing problem or opportunity

Purpose of the undertaking: Environmental Assessment Act section 6.1(2)(a)

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 prepared in accordance with subsections 6(2)(a) and 6.1(2) of the EAA and is described in section 2.3.1 (Concordance of ToR and EA Study Report Documentation) of EA.

Section 2.1 (Rationale and Purpose of the Proposed Undertaking) provides a description of the existing situation and the need for the undertaking. The purpose of the EA Study has been reviewed since approval of the ToR and is confirmed as “to provide environmentally safe and cost-effective long-term waste management for the Township of North Dundas for a 25-year planning period”. The Township is seeking to accommodate disposal of waste corresponding to the consumption of approximately 417,700 m3 of landfill capacity from 2023 to 2048, as the existing Boyne Road Landfill is currently at capacity.

As part of a 2013 application procedure intended to update the Boyne Road Landfill Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), the MECP determined that the landfill had exceeded its originally approved capacity and was in an overfill situation. The Township was required to evaluate waste management alternatives to deal with this overfill situation at the landfill. To continue using the landfill in the short-term, an amendment to the ECA for extension of approval for continued landfilling (emergency ECA) was received from the MECP and required the Township to evaluate long-term waste management alternatives. The Township was then required to identify a preferred course of action to provide both short-term and long-term waste management services for the municipality.

Alternatives

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

Alternative to: Environmental Assessment Act section 6.1(2)(b)(iii)

“Alternatives to” represent functionally different ways of addressing the problem or opportunity. A reasonable range of “alternatives to” should be identified and evaluated. The proponent should be able to justify that it has considered a reasonable range of alternatives. The “do nothing” alternative should be included in the evaluation and will represent the “benchmark” situation.

Analysis of the EA

Section 6.0 of the EA (Assessment of ‘Alternatives To’ the Undertaking) provides identification and assessment of six ‘Alternatives To’. The list of ‘Alternatives To’ was identified and approved as part of the ToR. These ‘Alternatives To’ were considered and determined to still be the representative alternatives available for managing waste in the Township of North Dundas for a 25-year planning period.

To provide a basis for comparative evaluation, each ‘Alternative To’ was developed at a conceptual level so that their feasibility of implementation, potential effects on the environment and relative advantages and disadvantages could be identified. A qualitative assessment methodology was then used to complete a comparative assessment. The comparison of alternatives compared a reasonable range of alternatives against the “do nothing” alternative. The alternatives considered were:

• alternative 1 — existing landfill site closure and export waste for disposal
• alternative 2 — landfill site expansion
• alternative 3 — existing landfill site closure and establish new landfill site in the township
• alternative 4 — existing landfill site closure and alternative waste management technologies
• alternative 5 — enhanced waste diversion
• alternative 6 — do nothing

The outcome of the review of the alternatives identified landfill site expansion with continued waste diversion as the preferred ‘Alternative To’ for waste management for the Township.

As part of this work, the proponent reviewed through a screening process whether a new landfill site could be selected as the Boyne Road Landfill site is the only waste disposal site owned by the Township (Alternative 3 — Existing Landfill Site Closure and Establish New Landfill Site in the Township). Specifically, this is considered the review of an alternative method. This review concluded that an appropriate site size could not be identified in accordance with the Townships land use policies to accommodate expected waste needs and as such the search for a new site was abandoned consistent with the ToR (Appendix I of EA — New Landfill Site Selection Assessment).

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

Alternative methods: Environmental Assessment Act section 6.1(2)(b)(ii)

“Alternative methods” include a description of different ways of implementing the preferred “alternative to”. A reasonable range of “alternative methods” should be identified and outlined.

Analysis of the EA

Section 10 of the EA (Description of and Rationale for the ‘Alternative Methods’ of Landfill Expansion) explains how the ‘Alternative Methods’ were formulated and in section 11 (Comparison and Evaluation of the Landfill Expansion Alternatives) describes the methodology and evaluation process followed to identify the preferred ‘Alternative Method’ for implementing the undertaking. Figures 10-1 through 10-6 in the EA illustrate the alternative methods considered, both the plan view and cross-section view. Table 10-1 in section 10.2.3 (Summary of Alternative Methods) provides a comparative summary of the ‘Alternative Methods’ of landfill expansion to the existing landfill.

The following ‘Alternative Methods’ for expanding the landfill to provide additional waste disposal capacity considered were:

• alternative 1 — combined horizontal and vertical expansion with larger east and west buffers
• alternative 2 — combined horizontal and vertical expansion with larger South buffer
• alternative 3 — primarily horizontal expansion

The three ‘Alternative Methods’ were compared and evaluated in section 11 of the EA that assessed the potential environmental effects for each ‘Alternative Method’ against ten environmental components (Atmosphere, geology and hydrogeology, surface water, biology, land use, agriculture, cultural heritage resources, design and operations, socio-economic and transportation). The ranking of the ‘Alternative Methods’ for each of the components and sub-components and identification of the overall preferred alternative is presented in Table 11-24 (Summary of the Components and Sub-Components Comparative Evaluation of ‘Alternative Methods). The comparative evaluation of ‘Alternative Methods’ of expanding the landfill site identified Alternative 3 (Primarily Horizontal Expansion) as the preferred method of expanding the landfill. Through the review of the EA, it was determined that the “Do-Nothing” alternative would not address the key problem, which was to provide additional landfill capacity for the Township. As such, it was not assessed as a baseline against the other three ‘’Alternative Methods’. However, the “Do-Nothing” comparison was used as a benchmark to comparably assess the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with each ‘Alternative Method’. The advantages and disadvantages of each ‘Alternative Method’ and the Do-Nothing to each environmental component was summarized in Table 11-25 (Summary of the Components and Sub-Components Advantages and Disadvantages).

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

Evaluation

1. Description of the environment

Environmental Assessment Act section 6.1(2)(c)(i)

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

Analysis of the EA

A preliminary description of the existing environmental conditions at the site was provided in the approved ToR. The ToR contained the commitment that a more detailed description of the existing conditions relevant to the preferred ‘alternative to’ and ‘alternative methods’ will be characterized in the EA. The EA provided a description of the environment affected related to the proposed undertaking and the alternatives considered in Section 6.0 (Assessment of ‘Alternatives To’ the Undertaking), Section 9.0 Description of the Environmental Potentially Affected for Landfill Expansion, Section 10.0 (Description and Rationale for the ‘Alternative Methods’ of Landfill Expansion) and Section 13.0 (Impact Assessment of the Preferred Undertaking).

The on-site waste management plan study area for the EA is the Boyne Road Landfill site property located at 12620 Boyne Rd, Winchester Ontario in the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Section 5.0 (Waste Management Plan Study Area and Existing Conditions) of the EA outlines the study area and the existing environmental conditions. Section 9.0 (Description of the Environment Potentially Affected for Landfill Expansion) of the EA further assess the existing conditions on and in the area of the Boyne Road Landfill with use of data from the associated supporting studies.

The environments described are:

• atmosphere
• geology and hydrogeology
• surface water
• biology
• land use planning and agricultural
• cultural heritage resources
• socio-economic
• transportation

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 6.1(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 6.0 (Assessment of ‘Alternatives To’ the Undertaking), 11.0 (Comparison and Evaluation of Landfill Alternatives), 12.0 (Description of the Preferred Undertaking), 13.0 (Impact Assessment of the Preferred Undertaking), 14.0 (Climate Change Considerations) and 15.0 (Cumulative Impact Assessment) of the EA include a summary of the net effects assessment for the ‘Alternatives To’ and ‘Alternative Methods’, an assessment of cumulative effects, climate change considerations, and advantages and disadvantages of each alternatives.

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

• atmosphere
• geology and hydrogeology
• surface water
• biology
• land use
• agriculture
• cultural heritage resources
• socio-economic
• transportation
• technical/design and operations

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

The 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 6.1(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 18.0 (Summary of Commitments) of the EA. Table 18-2 lists the commitments and the timing for when each commitment has been or will be carried out.

On-going environmental monitoring is proposed in Section 16.0 (Monitoring and Contingency) of the EA. Section 16.1 presents the proposed groundwater and surface water monitoring programs for landfill expansion and Section 16.2 presents associated contingency plans. Stormwater management and monitoring will follow the same field measure parameters as listed for surface water.

4. Evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to the environment

Environmental Assessment Act section 6.1(2)(d)

The preferred alternative should be identified through this evaluation.

Analysis of the EA

Advantages and disadvantage to the environment were considered in the evaluation of ‘Alternatives To’ and ‘Alternative Methods’ to select the preferred undertaking.

Table 6-11 (Advantages and Disadvantages of ‘Alternatives To”) in Section 6.0 of the EA compares each ‘Alternative To’ and Table 11.25 in section 11.0 (Summary of the Components and Sub-Components Advantages and Disadvantages) of the EA identifies the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the landfill expansion project on the following: atmosphere, geology and hydrogeology, surface water, biology, agriculture and land use cultural heritage resources, socio-economic, transportation as well as design and operations/technical.

In Table 6-11 (Alternatives To) and Table 11.24 (Alternative Methods), the advantages and disadvantages of the preferred method were also compared to the “do nothing” alternative.

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

5. Description of consultation with interested stakeholders

Environmental Assessment Act 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 First Nations, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from First Nations. The EA should outline conflict resolution techniques used by the proponent to resolve outstanding issues with any stakeholders. There must be clear documentation as to how issues and concerns have been addressed.

Analysis of the EA

Section 4.0 (Consultation Methods and Activities) 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 Volume 4 – Record of Consultation.

Key consultation methods included public notices, technical bulletins, open house (held in-person and virtually) mailings, social media postings, and a project website. Section 4.4.2, 4.6.10, and 4.7.6 of the EA describes the consultation undertaken with Indigenous communities. The potentially interested communities were identified as:

• Algonquins of Ontario
• Mohawks of Akwesasne
• Huron Wendat Nation

Letters and emails were sent to each of the communities advising of notices, technical bulletins, and open houses 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 6.1(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, the evaluation process in Sections 6.4 (Comparative Evaluation of ‘Alternatives To’) and Section 11.0 (Comparison and Evaluation of Landfill Expansion Alternatives) (Comparative Evaluations) of the EA explains why alternatives were chosen and why the preferred undertaking was selected. 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.

Section 12.0 of the EA provides a description of the preferred undertaking. A summary of the proposed undertaking is provided in Section 2.5 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 the current site is at capacity and operating under an emergency Environmental Compliance Approval to continue operations.

In the EA, Section 18.0 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

As noted above, the evaluation process in Sections 6.4 (Comparative Evaluation of ‘Alternatives To’) and Section 11.0 (Comparison and Evaluation of Landfill Expansion Alternatives) (Comparative Evaluations) of the EA explains why alternatives were chosen and why the preferred undertaking was selected. 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.

If EA approval is granted, the proponent will still require other legislative approvals to construct and operate the undertaking. Section 17.0 (Other Approvals) of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required, including:

• an amendment to the existing Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A482101 for the landfill site
• an amendment to the Industrial Sewage Works ECA issued under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) for the stormwater management system associated with the expanded landfill
• permit under the Endangered Species Act may be required following the submission of an Information Gathering Form to the MECP

Drainage Act work permit approval by the Conservation Authority for the stormwater management system and alterations to a portion of the Volks Drain.

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

Table 1: Government review team comment summary table

Proposal: North Dundas Waste Management Plan (EA)

Proponent: Township of North Dundas

Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM)

Comment 1

Please remove references to provincial approvals for built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. As this project does not contain provincially owned lands, or property with provincial heritage protections, there are no relevant provincial approvals.

In Ontario, the vast majority of protected heritage properties (which would require approvals for alterations) are identified and protected by the municipality under the Ontario Heritage Act.

We recommend the following alternative language is incorporated into Table 6-7 row cell for Alternative 2:

“Approval of the site expansion would have received the required provincial approvals regarding cultural heritage for protected heritage properties.”

We recommend the following alternative language is incorporated into Table 6-7 row cell for Alternative 4: “Approval of the new site would have received the required provincial approvals regarding cultural heritage for protected heritage properties.”

Proponent’s response

Section 6 of the EA presents the assessment of ‘Alternatives To’ the undertaking. For this section of the EA, the cultural heritage impact assessment had not yet been conducted on Alternative 2, Landfill Site Expansion and hence the language updates suggested are not correct. A better update would be “Approval of the site expansion could require provincial approvals regarding cultural heritage.” However, the suggested update does neither materially change the understanding of the layperson nor affect in any way the results of the comparison of ‘Alternatives To’ for this environmental component.

Similarly for Alternative 4, Existing Landfill Site Closure and Alternative Waste Management Technologies, a fulsome assessment was not completed and the suggested language update is not correct. A better update would be “Approval of the new site could require provincial approvals regarding cultural heritage.” However, the suggested update does neither materially change the understanding of the layperson nor affect in any way the results of the comparison of ‘Alternatives To’ for this environmental component.

Status

MCM has indicated that it has no further comment. The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment 2

MCM continues to recommend that the discussion of archaeology in section 9.7.1 (Archaeological Resources) should conclude with a statement that the Stage 1 archaeological assessment determined that the study area has low potential to contain archaeological resources.

Proponent’s response

As noted previously, the requested statement to be added to Section 9.7.1 is a conclusion after review of the background data and is more appropriate in Section 13.7.1 — the impact assessment — where such information is already contained. Additional text was added to the final EA to the beginning of Section 9.7.1 clarifying that this section of the EASR summarizes background information and Section 13.7.1 provides conclusions from the assessment of the background information. To the layperson, this is a logical sequence of information.

Status

MCM has indicated that it has no further comment. The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment 3

Similar to the comment above, section 9.7.2 (Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes) should provide a concluding statement to say there are no known or potential built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes in the study area.

Proponent’s response

Similar to the comment above, the requested statement to be added to Section 9.7.2 is a conclusion after review of the background data and is more appropriate in Section 13.7.2 — the impact assessment — where such information is already contained. To the layperson, this is a logical sequence of information.

Status

MCM has indicated that it has no further comment. The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

Comment 4

A Stage 1 archaeological assessment (AA) and report (under Project Information Form number P1107-0045-2021 is under review by this ministry. Please note archaeological concerns have not been addressed until reports have been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports where those reports recommend that:

1. the archaeological assessment of the project area is complete and
2. all archaeological sites identified by the assessment are either of no further cultural heritage value or interest (as per Section 48(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act) or that mitigation of impacts has been accomplished through an avoidance and protection

Proponent’s response

The Stage 1 archaeological assessment and report were also included in the EA in Volume 3, Appendix G-2 for review and consideration of the MCM. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment and report (under Project Information Form number P1107-0045-2021) was originally submitted to the MCM in November 2021. As of April 3, 2023, an expedited review of said Stage 1 archaeological assessment and report was requested.

Status

MCM has reviewed the Stage 1 archaeological assessment report and deemed it compliant on May 22, 2023. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment report was entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archeological Reports. MCM indicated that no further archaeological assessments are required for the study area. The ministry is satisfied this comment has been addressed.

South Nation Conservation – Comments received via email March 24, 2023

Comment 1

It is unclear whether a key issue — the potential impacts of the landfill site expansion on the municipal water supplies, most concernedly Chesterville – has been adequately considered or addressed by the Environmental Assessment document.

Proponent’s response

It is the Township’s position that the potential effects of the landfill expansion on the Chesterville municipal wells have been adequately considered in the EA. The location of the Morewood Esker and Maple Ridge aquifer formations and the municipal wells located within them, as well as the Boyne Road Landfill site, are shown on Figure 9-4 and these aquifer features are described in Section 9.2.2.1.2. The potential interaction between the groundwater in the area of the expanded landfill and the recharge to the Chesterville municipal water supply wells is evaluated and addressed in Sections 9.2.2.3 and 13.2.4 and is considered to be unlikely in view of the geological and hydrogeological setting of the area of the landfill and the intervening area between the landfill and the wells, and the groundwater flow in the area of the landfill (which is mainly away from the wells and at a very slow estimated groundwater flow velocity of 1 to 4 m/year).

It is noted that the assessment was found to satisfy the MECP Eastern Region Groundwater and MECP Source Protection Branch reviewers.

Comment 2

An overall issue, previously indicated by example by SNC, was that sufficient data was not provided in the document to allow an independent technical review of the interpretation and hydrogeological conclusions. SNC is being asked to rely on a review that may overlap but does not directly consider the source water protection mandate.

Proponent’s response The previous comments from SNC did not request that sufficient data be provided so that an independent technical review could be carried out, i.e., to do their own assessment of the effects of leachate on groundwater in the area of the landfill site or the potential for the landfill to adversely affect the Chesterville municipal wells. In our experience on EAs and other types of approvals, the agency reviewers do not complete independent technical reviews, but rather review the interpretations provided by the proponent and their consultants and pose their comments and concerns on what is presented for response and clarification by the proponent. The previous comments from SNC requested additional data may be required for the approval authority (in this case the MECP) to make an informed evaluation of the project and its potential effects. As per the response to the comment above, the Township are of the opinion that the EA has directly and adequately considered source water protection.

Comment 3

The Source Protection Region considers the potential impacts to, and long-term safety of, municipal drinking water supplies. The mandate of the MECP includes assessing the project compliance with the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act. Even though the MECP will approve the site use and issue the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) to operate the landfill, the review and approval does not necessarily confirm that the long-term protection of the municipal drinking water is assured, because it was not specifically considered. Proponent’s response One of the review agencies for this EA is the MECP Source Protection Branch, whose focus is on ensuring that the source water protection aspects of the proposed project, in this case the expansion of the Boyne Road landfill, appropriately considers source protection and demonstrates that the proposed project has appropriately considered source protection requirements and is not expected to have an adverse effect on municipal water supplies. As indicated in the response above, the EA does specifically consider the long-term protection of the municipal water supply wells.

Comment 4

The landfill is in the well head protection area (WHPA) D of the Chesterville municipal wells. The source water protection mapping rates the vulnerability as 4, or low; however, the WHPA D zone is defined as the area from where contamination may potentially reach the municipal wells within 25 years. In and beyond this period, the landfill will still be producing leachate and may even still be operating, thereby expanding the contamination source. Proponent’s response It is agreed that the landfill will continue to produce leachate beyond the proposed 25-year expansion period; Section 13.2.5 of the EASR describes the expected contaminating lifespan of the landfill will extend to about 2070 or some 22 years post-closure of the expanded landfill. Comments on the currently mapped WHPA for the Chesterville well water supply, which is shown on Figure 9-8 of the EA, are provided in Section 9.2.2.3 of the EA. Even if the actual recharge of the Chesterville wells is as shown by the current WHPA configuration, the fact that the definitions for WHPA Area D do not prohibit landfill sites as a land use within Area D shows the expected low risk of a landfill to the water supply. Further discussion on this matter is provided in the responses to comments below.

Comment 5

The following additions will address the South Nation Source Protection Region concerns:

1. the referenced analyses that indicate there will be no impact to the communal wells should be provided
2. a hydrostratigraphic cross-section using available data including the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) study (Gorrell, 1991) for the area between the landfill site and the communal wells should be provided
3. the potential connection between groundwater and the ditches should be considered
4. the current and projected vertical and horizontal extent of the leachate plume should be provided
5. the hydrostratigraphic relationship between the landfill site, Melvin Swamp and the eskers should be demonstrated
6. monitoring wells and sentry wells should be installed east of the waste and future waste areas. Representative wells selected on the basis of predicted vertical leachate extent should be designated as “compliance evaluation monitoring wells”

The report should consider and provide a worst-case assessment of how leachate might reach the municipal wells. A mitigation and contingency plan should be provided to a level of effort that will provide assurance that potential risks to the water supplies can be addressed.

Proponent’s response

1. The predictive modelling of long-term effects from the expanded landfill on groundwater quality is fully reported in Section 13.2 of the EA report. This analysis shows that the maximum extent of leachate effects from both the existing and expanded landfill are 600 m north/northwest and south/southwest of the landfill disposal area. This predictive modelling, coupled with: 1) the understanding and description of the regional and landfill site-specific geology and hydrogeology as described in sections 9.2 and 13.2 and illustrated on Figures 9-3 through 9-8 in the EA; 2) the absence of leachate effects on groundwater to the east and southeast of the existing landfill; and 3) a separation distance of 3.5 km between the landfill and the Chesterville wells to the southeast result in the stated conclusion that the expanded landfill is not expected to adversely affect the recharge to the municipal wells
2. In view of the above, it is not considered necessary to provide the requested hydrostratigraphic cross-section. The Township’s consultant, WSP, appreciates the reviewer making reference to the OGS study (Gorrell, 1991), titled Buried Sand and Gravel Features and Blending Sands in Eastern Ontario, OGS publication 5801. This publication was obtained on-line and reviewed to prepare this response and to consider the information contained in that report in terms of potential interaction between the proposed landfill expansion and the Chesterville wells. The 1991 report interprets a southern continuation of the Morewood Esker core connecting to the Maple Ridge granular formation as has been illustrated for information purposes on attached Figure A. The interpretation of the presence of the esker core, which is indicated to be buried beneath an overlying deposit of silty sand and silty clay, is based on seismic reflection and refraction survey lines 9, 10, 11 and 12 (a portion of lines 9 and 12 were interpreted as indicating a “possible gravel” zone) and the subsurface conditions reported in Ministry of Environment water well records in the area studied. Although there were boreholes drilled as part of the work reported in 1991, it does not appear that there were any boreholes drilled to confirm the presence of the interpreted buried esker formation. The connecting piece of the esker core is aligned roughly north-south and is indicated to cross beneath Boyne Road approximately 3.5 km east of the Boyne Road Landfill site. Based on the known characteristics of the esker where it has been investigated in much more detail in the area of the exposed Morewood Esker to the north, and by the Geological Survey of Canada in the buried portion of the esker in the Embrun area and further north, it is typical that the esker core is approximately 200 m wide and is flanked by sandy soils (referred to as the carapace) that are of variable width but in the Morewood Esker extend to where they taper out about 400 m beyond the core. Assuming these typical dimensions for the buried esker interpreted to be present in Gorrell, 1991, the closest western extent of the granular esker materials would be approximately 3 km east of the Boyne Landfill. It is noted that seismic lines 11 and 10 located along Boyne Road about mid way between the interpreted esker and the Boyne Road Landfill did not indicate the presence of granular soils; rather the interpreted stratigraphy was clay soils overlying bedrock. This is consistent with the subsurface conditions encountered in the many detailed boreholes on and in the area of the Boyne Road landfill, as described in Section 9.2.1 of the EA, related figures and the borehole logs provided in Volume 2 Appendix D-1
    

   The additional information provided in Gorrell, 1991 supports the interpretation presented in the EA that there is not a direct connection between the subsurface materials at the Boyne Road Landfill and the granular materials at Maple Ridge that supply the groundwater to the Chesterville wells. As described in Section 9.2.2.1.2 of the EA, “the majority of recharges occurs along the length of the esker feature where the coarse granular central core and sandy flanks of the eskers are exposed at the surface”. Assuming that the interpreted buried connection between the Morewood Esker and Maple Ridge is present as described in Gorrell, 1991, it is expected that the groundwater recharge to the Chesterville wells would occur mainly on Maple Ridge where the granular deposits are exposed, and perhaps secondarily from a portion of the buried esker extending northward. This would support the discussion presented in EA Section 9.2.2.3, which describes that the modelled WHPA for the Chesterville wells is a reflection of designating the Melvin Swamp north of the Boyne Road Landfill as a regional recharge area in the model, rather than considering the more detailed information focused on the esker formations, their location and their recharge potential

   WSP reviewed the current Water Well Information System (WWIS) as a check on the Gorrell 1991 interpretation of a buried granular/esker connection between the Morewood Esker and Maple Ridge. Based on a review of all stratigraphic descriptions of wells in the area of consideration and, excluding wells that have a well location accuracy code (UTMRC) of more than 5, the WWIS data generally support the interpreted presence of the buried connection

   Possible changes to the existing WHPA for the municipal water supply well #7 was recently assessing by WSP as part of the Class EA studies for the Township of North Dundas (Wellhead Protection Area Study and Vulnerability Assessment, Township of North Dundas Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the North Dundas Drinking Water Supply System Capacity Expansion, January 2023) to provide additional municipal water supply for Winchester by the use of another communal well located in the Morewood Esker about one km south of existing well #7 (shown on Figure 9-4). Using detailed information for the Morewood Esker portion of the groundwater model, modelling of the combined pumping of existing well #7 and the new well resulted in a WHPA that is oriented north-south along the esker, different than the current modelled WHPA for well #7 shown on Figure 9-8 that results from designating the Morewood Bog to the east as a regional recharge area in the model. This recent work was reviewed by the SNC hydrogeologist, who provided comments on the Class EA study. The Township will complete the detailed WHPA work in the near future when the production well is constructed and tested, which will lead to the process to formally change the WHPA for well #7 and the new well within the Source Protection Plan

3. As described in EA Section 9.3.3, “The ongoing annual surface water monitoring program indicates that there are periodic impacts on surface water quality in the roadside ditch from landfill leachate, either due to landfill site runoff or the seepage of leachate-impacted groundwater into the Volks Drain.” The Volks Drain flows eastward to where it discharges to Blacks Creek that flows northward. Both Volks Drain and Blacks Creek are relatively shallow drainage features and located within the area underlain by clay or till soils between the landfill and the interpreted buried esker. As such, there is no apparent connection between surface water in Volks Drain and the recharge to the Chesterville wells
4. The horizontal extent of the current leachate plume to the north, west and south is described in Section 9.2.2.5 and the extent of the predicted leachate plume associated with the expansion is described in Section13.2.3. Based on the hydrogeological setting and the current monitoring data the vertical extent of the leachate plume is currently and is expected to be in the shallow overburden and upper bedrock zone
5. The hydrostratigraphic relationship between the landfill site, Melvin Swamp and the eskers is described in the EA document and further assessed in the response to previous comments above
6. There are currently monitoring wells in overburden and bedrock to the east of the existing and proposed expanded landfill area; these wells are unimpacted by landfill leachate and groundwater at this location represents background quality for the landfill site (EA Section 9.2.2.2.5). As described in EA Section 16.1, the existing (unimpacted) monitoring wells to the south of the existing landfill will be decommissioned for the proposed expansion and new monitoring wells 22A and 22B will be installed to the south of the landfill expansion area (refer to Figure 16-1). These monitoring wells, as well as the existing monitoring wells to the east, will serve as on-site sentry wells to detect leachate impacts on groundwater quality, if any, within the landfill site boundary, and monitor trends over time, such that contingency actions can be taken, if required, prior to the degree of leachate effects resulting in non-compliance with the Reasonable Use Guideline at the landfill site or Contaminant Attenuation Zone boundaries, which at the closest point is some 3 km distance from the Chesterville wells to the southeast

Status (Comments 1-5)

The SNC requested further clarification with regards to the proponent’s responses which was undertaken during a May 2, 2023, meeting. Following this meeting, the SNC has no further comments. Further details regarding the May 2, 2023, meetings and comments are provided below in this table.

The ministry’s Eastern Region groundwater and Source Protection Branch have reviewed the project documentation and have no further comments. The Source Protection Branch reviewed the comments provided by the SNC and the proponents responses. The Source Protection Branch indicated that the original review of the EA report still stands with no further comments.

The ministry is satisfied these comments have been addressed.

South Nation Conservation – Comments received via conference on May 2, 2023, and summarized in May 16, 2023 Memorandum

Comment 1

The potential effects of long term, and possibly increased pumping from the Chesterville wells on inducing leachate-impacted groundwater flow towards the municipal wells has not been considered or documented in the Final EA report or in the response to comments. A possibly analogous local situation where increased pumping of the Embrun municipal wells (completed in the same esker deposits but some distance north from the Winchester and Chesterville municipal well sites) resulted in inducing leachate-impacted groundwater flow from beneath the now closed Russell Township landfill towards the Embrun wells. It was agreed by WSP and the Township that this specific item had not been directly addressed, but that there was sufficient information available in the EA report and from other recent work related to providing additional water supply for North Dundas for this to be addressed.

Proponent’s response

The key information addressing the potential interaction between long term operation of the Chesterville municipal wells located on the Maple Ridge portion of the esker and the generation of leachate-impacted groundwater flow associated with both the existing and proposed expanded landfill is as follows:

1. Regarding the Embrun wells, studies showed that the Russell Township landfill site overlies the sandy flanks of the esker that have a direct hydraulic connection to the coarser deposits that comprise the esker core from which the wells draw their water supply. WSP advised that this is different than the setting in which the Boyne Road Landfill site and the Chesterville wells some 3.5 km to the southeast are situated; the Chesterville wells are completed in the coarse granular core area of the Maple Ridge portion of the esker deposit, and this core and the sands that flank it do not extend even close to the Boyne Road landfill. The landfill site area and the intervening lands between the landfill and the wells is underlain by silty clay and glacial till soils overlying limestone bedrock; i.e., there is no direct hydraulic connection between the two. As such, in WSP’s opinion, from a hydrogeological perspective, the potential for long term well pumping to induce migration of leachate-impacted groundwater towards these wells is considered to be improbable to negligible.

2. The Chesterville wells are completed in and obtain their water supply from the coarse granular overburden; the total depth of each well is 12.2 m and have been in operation since 1989 (well #5) and 2003 (well #6). To assess the potential for continued pumping of the wells to drawdown the groundwater table at distance from the wells and induce flow towards the wells, the hourly water level readings in the two production wells from the start of 2019 through 2022 was obtained from the water system operator and reviewed. The data shows in general the water level varies seasonally, with the lower water levels typically in the drier parts of the year, with no trend to a decline in the water level over time.

   Operation of the wells involves the pumps cycling off and on for periods of time daily. The data shows the following: 1) the water level in the wells during operations experiences only limited drawdown during pumping cycles; 2) when the pumps cycle off, the water level recovers quickly between cycles; 3) compared to historical water level information when the wells were constructed, the operation of well #5 since 1989 and well #6 since 2003 does not appear to have resulted in permanent lowering of the groundwater level in the area of the wells. The limited lowering of the water level at the well, while the pumps are on, may extend some distance from the wells in the high permeability granular soils that comprise the esker; however, it would be expected to have little effect in terms of potential groundwater level drawdown in the much less permeable clay and till soils beyond the esker, i.e., in the clay and till soils in the estimated 3 km intervening area between the Maple Ridge esker formation/wells and the landfill site.

   Operational experience has shown that the pumping rates on these Chesterville wells decline over time due to fouling of the well screen and the pumping rates can only be sustained at rates well below their maximum rated capacity by fairly regular maintenance to maintain this reduced yield. As such, it is neither possible nor proposed by the Township to increase the pumping rates of these existing Chesterville wells (also see item 3 below).

   It is also noted that in over 30 years of groundwater monitoring at the Boyne Road landfill site, there is no indication that the pumping of the Chesterville wells (or any other activity) is having an effect on the groundwater levels or associated groundwater flow patterns in the area of the landfill site. Also, that groundwater monitoring has demonstrated that there are no leachate effects on groundwater quality on the landfill site within a limited distance to both the east and south of the disposal area (waste disposal commenced in the mid-1960’s, some 60 years ago). This supports the interpretation that effects on groundwater quality from the proposed expansion are expected to be towards the north/northwest and south/southwest.

3. In the Municipal Class EA being undertaken (currently at the Phase 2 report stage) to provide additional groundwater supply to satisfy the water supply demands of the growing Township of North Dundas, in particular within the Village of Winchester, the identified preferred option is to: 1) pursue an additional water supply well for Winchester to address the shorter term demand, with the well to be located in the Morewood Esker area along Lafleur Road about 1 km south of existing well #7 (approximately 5.5 km northeast of the Boyne Road Landfill), and 2) to meet the rest of the Township’s long term water supply deficits, pursue a combination of new groundwater wells and a connection to the water distribution system in South Dundas, with the latter involving a new transmission watermain to be constructed from Winchester to connect to the water distribution system in Morrisburg, owned by the Municipality of South Dundas. The water supply is surface water sourced from the St. Lawrence River and treated at the water treatment plant in Morrisburg. This supply via the transmission main has adequate capacity to satisfy the Township’s long term needs without any additional groundwater wells; however, the possibility of new wells was included within the preferred option to not eliminate possible additional groundwater supply sources from future consideration.
4. As such, if the ongoing groundwater monitoring program at the landfill site, which will be a requirement of the amended ECA for the landfill expansion (if the expansion is approved by MECP) both during operations and post-closure, was to indicate the potential for leachate-impacted groundwater to adversely affect the Chesterville wells, the Class EA process has identified and selected an alternative water supply solution that could be used to replace the Chesterville wells.

As described in the EA report and in previous responses to comments, the landfill site is required to remain in compliance with the Reasonable Use Guideline (RUG) in terms of leachate effects on off-site groundwater quality at the boundary of its property or a Contaminant Attenuation Zone (CAZ). There will be a trigger mechanism in the amended landfill ECA (set at a percentage of that allowed under RUG, and noting RUG is based on the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards). The trigger mechanism will require the Township to implement contingency measures at the landfill before the RUG is exceeded in groundwater at the property/CAZ boundaries, which are at the closest southeast point (which is opposite to the direction of groundwater flow beneath the landfill) some 3 km from the Chesterville wells.

Status

SNC provided a letter responding to the proponents Memorandum on May 16, 2023, indicating that the SNC accepts the proponent’s responses and has no further comments on the EA report. The ministry is satisfied that the SNC’s comments have been addressed.