cover sheets may18 9am 1 - waste management

Terms of Reference for a New Landfill Footprint Consultation Record

June 2010

Appendix C Workshop – Consultation Report and Material

WS-1

Terms of Reference for a New Landfill Footprint

Consultation Record

June 2010

Introduction

This appendix describes the Workshop on alternatives to, alternative methods and evaluation criteria held on March 25, 2010 at The Smiling Wilderness Family Restaurant & Palace Village, 824 Palace Road in Napanee, Ontario.

Appendix C.1 contains the Workshop Consultation Report, which provides an overview of the event. Appendix C.2 contains Workshop notification materials including agency correspondence. Appendix C.3 contains the Workshop Materials including the workbook and handouts.

WS-2


June 2010

Appendix C.1 Workshop Consultation Report

WS-3

Terms of Reference for a New Landfill Footprint Workshop Summary Report

Page 1 of 15

June 2010

Workshop Consultation Report

March 25, 2010

New Landfill Footprint

Beechwood Road Environmental Centre

A workshop was held at the Smiling Wilderness Family Restaurant and Palace Village, 824 Palace Road, Napanee, Ontario from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss:

1. The need for a new landfill footprint and alternatives to a new landfill footprint; 2. Alternative methods or ways of developing a new landfill footprint; and, 3. Proposed criteria that will be used in the EA to compare alternatives and identify a preferred

alternative for the new landfill footprint.

The workshop was also intended to provide an opportunity for participants to provide general input and feedback on the EA process and opportunities for the public to become involved in the EA process.

The workshop was advertised on the comment sheets of Open House (OH) #1 (Appendix A) and attendees at the Open House were invited to sign up for the workshop. A notice of the workshop was posted on the project website (brec.wm.com) between March 12 and March 25. About 20 of the OH#1 attendees were contacted by telephone to notify of the workshop and to find-out about their interest.

Representatives from WM and consultants included:

Tim Murphy – WM Linda Cooper – WM Randy Harris – WM Remi Godin - WM

Michelle Armstrong –FoTenn Consultants Inc. Blair Shonilker – AECOM Ted O‟Neill – Golder Associates Ltd. Bhagya Weerasinghe – Golder Associates

Ltd.

Participants arrived at the Workshop between 6:00 p.m. and 6:15 p.m. Randy Harris began the workshop at 6:15 p.m. with an overview of the purpose, intended outcome and agenda for the evening. A total of 21 people (not including WM and consultants) participated in the workshop as listed below.

The participants were divided into three groups: A, B and C.

Group A consisted of the following people:

Councillor City of Ottawa Mayor of Greater Napanee Resident of Greater Napanee Five Neighbours

WS-4


Page 2 of 15

June 2010

Group B consisted of the following people:

CLC member, Local Restaurant Owner Local Business Owner KFL&A Chief Medical Officer of Health Two Neighbours Councillor

Group C consisted of the following people:

Local Business Owner and CLC member CLC member, Master student in landfill leachate treatment Local business owners Neighbour CLC for City of Ottawa

There were three teams of facilitators and resource people. The facilitation team members and discussion topics are listed below:

1. The need for a new landfill footprint and Alternatives to a new landfill footprint (facilitated by: Michelle Armstrong and Ted O‟Neill resource person);

2. Alternative methods or ways of developing a new landfill footprint (facilitated by: Bhagya Weerasinghe and Linda Cooper resource person);

3. Proposed criteria that will be used in the EA to compare alternatives and identify a preferred alternative for the new landfill footprint (facilitated by: Blair Shonilker and Remi Godin resource person).

Each participant received a workbook (Appendix C.2) to complete during the evening, which was divided into three sessions of equal length. The facilitator teams met with each group in turn so that each person had the opportunity to participate in discussions, ask questions and provide input into each of the three discussion topics. During each session, the group members went through the workbooks assisted by a facilitator. The facilitators and/or resource persons went through general information regarding each of the project components and then answered questions. Then, general discussions took place where each group member had the opportunity to provide any comment or question. Finally, the group members were asked to document their input/opinion in the workbook.

There was a short break between table sessions, when they reconvened, they rotated to the next group.

WS-5


Page 3 of 15

June 2010

At the end of the three sessions Randy Harris spoke to all the participants and thanked them for their participation and input. He noted that some folks had not completed all of their workbook comments and, if they wanted to, they were welcome to complete these at their own pace at home and to return them to WM next week. In addition, an electronic copy of the workbook was made available on the project website for anyone to read and use.

Topic #1: The need for a new landfill footprint and alternatives to a new landfill footprint Group A

Part 1 – Need

What will happen if there is no capacity to take garbage in Ontario? The Government of Ontario needs to take responsibility. Waste needs to go somewhere – shipping waste across the border is not a solution. What happens

when the border closes to waste? Michigan will stop taking waste soon. What about incineration – is that an option? Was out of the Province shipments of waste considered in the analysis? (general agreement that there is a need for more waste capacity in Eastern Ontario)

Part 2 – Alternatives To

Transferring wastes to other locations is just too expensive and not good for the environment. Transportation will only get more costly.

Does the United States (U.S.) have the same environmental regulations (e.g., Dumping waste in the ocean from barges) – is it responsible to ship waste to U.S.?

Everyone produces waste and no one wants to deal with it – someone needs to take responsibility. Saw a documentary on a landfill site in BC – we need tougher regulations passed so that we are forced

to deal with our own waste. Why is dealing with your own waste such a tough sell? There are many benefits to the project. BREC

would be a state-of-the-art facility; it should be an easier sell. The Province should step in and take responsibility and pass an Act that says how it should be done

and it should be imposed on Ontario that we have to take care of our own garbage. This process is going to be better than the last process. (general agreement that the „alternatives to‟ assessment was adequate – no other factors were

identified that need to be considered) (general agreement that alternative 6 was preferred)

WS-6


Page 4 of 15

June 2010

Group B

Part 1 – Need

WM is asking for less landfill capacity than the last EA. If landfill needs in Eastern Ontario could potentially increase, why is WM decreasing the size of the landfill volume?

There was opposition to the size of the landfill during the last EA. The BREC will increase diversion as well and therefore the landfill volume is less. At the time, in 2005, Toronto was shipping to the US and Napanee thought if the border closed then

they would get Toronto waste. BREC can be a regional centre of excellence, a model for other waste centres.


Is it possible that if a “no” turned to a “yes”, or vice versa, in the screening summary identifying

alternatives, that the preferred alternative could change during the process? No, the preferred alternative is identified and confirmed during the Terms of Reference process. The EA

will be focused on the preferred alternative. Will this be a scoped EA? Yes, in EA terms, this is called a “Focused EA”. The need, or rationale for the project, and the preferred

alternative will be defined. We agree with the 6 alternatives and that the preferred alternative is the best one and the one only one

(agreed on by the three others at the table).

Group C

Part 1 – Need

What does “aggressive diversion” mean? Is a 2% annual increase in diversion realistic and achievable?

Where did that number come from? An increase of by 1.5 to 2% per year might be hard to achieve – progress may be slow. People should have to pay more for waste disposal services – there would be better diversion rates as a

result. Did WM consider the closing of municipal landfill sites (eg. 2 in Stone Mills reaching capacity)? What about the garbage that goes south? What happens when the EPA decides to shutdown garbage

transfers? We won‟t be prepared to deal with our own waste. What happens when the border closes?

Michigan will stop taking wastes soon.

Toronto now has the Green Lane facility which can take Toronto wastes.

Why haven’t more sites been created?

WS-7


Page 5 of 15

June 2010

Taking trash across the border costs money – very heavy burden on the taxpayer. It is better if waste goes to an organized centre such as BREC instead of it going to a larger number of

small municipal sites since BREC will be much better equipped to sort, recycle and divert waste from a landfill. The smaller sites don‟t do much recycling and are not well-managed.


Need to educate the public about need for more diversion and produce less waste A lot of backyards have no compost, we need to think more about producing less waste. There

needs to be a monetary incentive to encourage people to produce less – but I don‟t think this really

WM‟s job. There need to more regulations that reduce the amount of packaging being produced and going

to landfills.

Topic #2: Alternative Methods or ways of developing a new landfill footprint Group A

This group felt that the areas identified as potential development areas are good, because it is not in view of Beechwood Road and Deseronto Road. Also, the group felt that WM has chosen the best land option based on availability, it is the most accessible, and looking at the available land areas, there are not very many options to be looked at other than what WM have proposed.

One neighbour, who has been living in the site vicinity for the past 37 years, felt that the environmental issues such as odour and aesthetics are overstated by the opposition and the issues are not as nearly as complex or bad as stated.

Group B

The participants of this group acknowledged a general understanding of the information presented and the analysis undertaken by WM to determine the most suitable land envelopes for the new landfill footprint.

There was a question about why not extend the existing landfill to the WM owned land area immediately east of the existing landfill until WM gets approval for the larger landfill footprint? It was explained that the EA approvals are required for the expansion similar to the approvals required for the development of the new LF footprint and that it would only make sense to get approvals for what is needed (13 M m3) one

time. It was proposed that WM should get approval to develop both envelopes of land on east and west

part of the project area, which will allow them to develop a new landfill footprint on the easterly part of

the property. Once the capacity of the easterly landfill is filled, westerly part could be developed.

Then they questioned why WM decided to restrict the height of the new LF to the existing landfill height.

When they were explained that the existing height was used as a starting point and is restricted by the

WS-8


Page 6 of 15

June 2010

height of the hydro easement and that it is open to public discussion, they mentioned that the they feel that they are not oppose to the LF being higher than the existing LF, if WM were to convert the LF surface into recreational areas and make it “look pretty.” They were also informed that the existing height was used as a starting point and the exact dimensions of the LF and the locations of other diversion facilities (MRF, C&D, greenhouses etc) will be determined through the EA process.

The group felt that encouraging public use on the site could help promote the project because that would help people realize that the Site is being operated in an environmentally healthy manner and it is much more safer than what the opposition is making it out to be.

The group felt that they do not like symmetrical objects and it is preferred that the area could be developed to blend with the surrounding area, and encourage public uses.

All of the group members preferred the westerly option over the easterly option because they felt that the option that is closest to the Deseronto Road was better from a transportation perspective. Also, they felt that using the westerly option is preferred from a visual impact perspective as the landfill will be sheltered by the wetland conservation area to the north, existing closed LF site to the south and other wooded areas/open land to the west.

Group C This group had the following questions:

- Who is ultimately going to decide where to put the landfill footprint on the proposed land envelopes? - Does the 50 – 55 ha landfill footprint include required buffer zones? - What would the impact be on the cost of the liner based on the orientation of the LF? - What determines the ultimate height of the LF and what is the rationale for choosing the particular

height chosen? o For this analysis, if volume and the height is constrained, the only thing that would change is

slope and the area? o What would the impact be if the height is shorter?

- The 200 m buffer zones around Marysville Creek required by the MOE or decided by WM? - Does the landfill have to be a rectangular/square shape or could it be an irregular shape like Kidney

shape? They felt that the LF being irregular shape would be beneficial in this case because it will allow better utilization of the land here considering there are distinct land areas east and west part of the Site.

WS-9


Page 7 of 15

June 2010

Topic #3 Evaluation Criteria Group A There was a lengthy discussion on the aboriginal component where we need to engage the MBQ as they are the only political opponent left. Members of the group also discussed the fact that opposition has provided many incorrect statements in the past about the environmental impacts that have not been challenged by WM and that the community will then believe the opposition statements. WM is a big corporation with many sites and experts and should be able to operate the sites in a proper and safe manner and that the Community should be lucky to have WM around to operate a state-of-the-art facility. There was a discussion on site geology and it was noted that it has to be put into perspective as other new sites have been located in quarries (e.g., Walker Bros). Group B There was a long discussion about economic benefits to local municipality from Napanee councillor and a local business person. Discussed the fact that the Napanee STP could be upgraded to treat the leachate and also help the municipal infrastructures from revenues/cost savings that the BREC would provide. Group C This group spent most of the time completing the evaluation criteria part of the workbook on their own. There was a question about how much land WM owned and where it was located. There were also concerns about the wetland to the NW and how WM would protect it from surface water impact. Comments on workshop / general comments

Some of the information was too technical. The naysayers would read into the information and conclude that you had already made your decision,

but you are not going to change their minds. Lafarge issue – the courts overturned MOE‟s decision. My opinion is that most of the town‟s people don‟t care – the negative voice gets heard. Need to emphasize the benefit to this community economically – more jobs, lower taxes.

Questions Attendees were asked from the Workshop Workbook:

Need and Rationale for Waste Disposal Service in Eastern Ontario:

WS-10


Page 8 of 15

June 2010

1. Do you understand the analysis that WM undertook to determine if there is a need for waste disposal services in eastern Ontario?

2. Are there are other assessment factors that should be included in the analysis? What are they? 3. Do you generally agree that there is a need for waste disposal services in eastern Ontario even

with aggressive increases in waste diversion efforts? If no, please share your reasoning.

Alternatives To a New Landfill Footprint:

1. Do you understand the analysis that WM undertook to determine alternatives to meeting the need for waste disposal services in eastern Ontario?

2. Are there other “alternatives to” that should be considered? What are they? 3. Are there other evaluation criteria that should be considered in the assessment? What are they? 4. Do you agree with the screening of alternatives to determine if they are reasonable and practical? 5. Do you agree with the conclusion that alternative 6 is the preferred alternative?

Alternative Methods (Ways) for a New Landfill Footprint

1. Do you understand the analysis that WM undertook to determine general areas (envelopes) for developing new landfill footprint alternatives and other components of the BREC?

2. Are you in agreement with the constraint areas? If no, how would you change them? 3. Are you in agreement with the potential development areas (envelopes)? If no, how would you

change them? 4. How many alternative methods should be considered in the EA? Why?

Evaluation Criteria for Detailed Comparative Evaluation of Footprint Alternatives

1. Do you agree with the environmental components that have been identified? If no, what changes would you suggest?

2. Do you agree with the environmental sub-components that have been identified? If no, what changes would you suggest?

3. Do you agree with the rationale provided for the environmental components and sub-components? If no, what changes would you suggest?

4. Do you agree with the indicators provided? If no, what changes or additions would you make? (Make changes on the bale).

5. Please rate the criteria according to the importance you place each. This information will be used in the aggregation of preferences for the alternatives. (Please make changes on the table and provide the rationale for the importance that you selected).

Workbook Input

Table 1 summarizes the comments/answers received for the above questions on workbooks from the attendees at workshop.

WS-11

Term

s of R

efer

ence

for a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tprin

tW

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y R

epor

t

* Th

is c

olum

n co

rres

pond

s to

ques

tions

in th

e W

orkb

ook

liste

d on

pag

e W

S-12

and

WS-

13

**C

olum

ns 1

- 14

cor

resp

ond

toin

put r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

ppa

rtici

pant

s.

Pag

e 9

of 1

5Ju

ne 2

010

Tab

le 1

: Inp

ut r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

p at

tend

ees

Wor

kboo

k N

umbe

r**

*1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

14O

vera

llIt

seem

ed a

bit

mor

e of

a

pres

enta

tion

with

co

mm

ents

than

a

true

wor

ksho

pN

eed

1.Y

es–

has t

o go

so

mew

here

–

Mic

higa

n w

ill c

lose

so

on

Yes

Yes

, we

mak

e ga

rbag

e, w

here

is

it to

go?

With

m

ore

fam

ilies

, th

ere

is g

reat

er

need

.

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

I und

erst

and

that

hu

man

bein

gs

prod

uce

garb

age

it ha

s to

go

som

ewhe

re

N/A

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes

yes.

We

love

a

land

fill f

or o

ur

was

te w

e ne

ed

to k

eep

it op

en

for e

aste

rn

Ont

ario

2.In

cine

ratio

n?

-A

mou

nt o

f was

te

goin

g so

mew

here

el

se.

Are

ther

e pl

ans t

o ei

ther

exp

and

the

curr

ent f

acili

ties

or c

reat

e ne

w

faci

litie

s in

the

even

t tha

t we

are

no lo

nger

abl

e to

sh

ip o

ur w

aste

ac

ross

the

bord

er?

N/A

N/A

Ric

hmon

d la

ndfil

l is

abo

ut fu

ll.N

/AN

/AA

re th

ere

othe

r pr

opos

ed si

tes?

Publ

ic

educ

atio

n on

co

mpo

stin

g

N/A

3.-

Yes

–a

larg

e ne

edW

e ar

e in

agre

emen

t tha

t th

ere

is a

nee

d.

Yes

We

need

an

envi

ronm

enta

lly

safe

way

of d

ealin

g w

ith o

ur w

aste

–w

ithou

t it w

e ar

e a

cons

tipat

ed

com

mun

ity. J

ust a

s w

ith c

onst

ipat

ion

brin

gs o

n a

host

of

heal

th p

robl

ems j

ust

so w

ith a

co

mm

unity

’s

heal

th.

N/A

N/A

Yes

N/A

N/A

Wou

ld a

lim

it on

to

tal c

apac

ity

forc

e in

crea

sed

dive

rsio

n? (e

ven

beyo

nd th

e 2%

)

Mor

e di

vers

ion

cuts

dow

n on

land

fill

Yes

–hu

man

po

pula

tions

nee

d la

ndfil

ls-w

e ne

ed to

div

ert

as m

uch

as p

ossi

ble

-we

need

to m

ake

nece

ssar

y __

___r

lrvtri

cal w

ith

all _

____

__w

aste

. N

eed

next

te

chno

logy

to so

rt w

aste

like

met

als,

plas

tics,

woo

d fib

re.

yes

WS-12

Term

s of R

efer

ence

for a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tprin

tW

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y R

epor

t

* Th

is c

olum

n co

rres

pond

s to

ques

tions

in th

e W

orkb

ook

liste

d on

pag

e W

S-12

and

WS-

13

**C

olum

ns 1

- 14

cor

resp

ond

toin

put r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

ppa

rtici

pant

s.

Pag

e 10

of 1

5Ju

ne 2

010

Tab

le 1

: Inp

ut r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

p at

tend

ees(

cont

inue

d)W

orkb

ook

Num

ber*

**

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

Alte

rna-

tives

To

1.Y

esY

esY

es, i

t was

stra

ight

forw

ard

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

Even

in

cons

ider

ing

with

ou

r lim

ited

expe

rtise

any

po

ssib

le o

ptio

ns

avai

labl

e. W

e w

ould

hav

e to

co

me

to th

e co

nclu

sion

WM

di

d th

at o

ptio

n 6

is id

eal.

N/A

N/A

Yes

yes

Yes

yes

2.--

No

No,

not

as f

ar a

s I

am c

once

rned

, Ifo

und

list a

nd

anal

ysis

just

fine

.

Non

e th

at I

can

thin

k of

I thi

nk y

ou’v

e co

vere

d it

(at l

east

th

ose

that

are

po

litic

ally

pos

sibl

e w

ith th

is O

ntar

io

Gov

t.). H

owev

er,

idea

lly w

e sh

ould

be

look

ing

at so

me

Euro

pean

or

Japa

nese

exa

mpl

es

of si

mpl

y ha

rves

ting

ener

gy

thru

eco

logi

cally

so

und

inci

nera

tion.

(ie

. Bur

ning

tire

s in

cem

ent k

ilns –

pure

en

ergy

bei

ng

harv

este

d.

Inci

nera

tion

to

prod

uce

elec

trici

ty.

noN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/ALa

ndfil

l vs.

bior

eact

or la

ndfil

lTh

ree

R’s

?

3.N

oN

one,

eve

ryth

ing

was

look

ed a

t.N

one

that

I ca

n th

ink

ofN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AEn

viro

nmen

tal

task

sN

/AY

es

WS-13

Term

s of R

efer

ence

for a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tprin

tW

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y R

epor

t

* Th

is c

olum

n co

rres

pond

s to

ques

tions

in th

e W

orkb

ook

liste

d on

pag

e W

S-12

and

WS-

13

**C

olum

ns 1

- 14

cor

resp

ond

toin

put r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

ppa

rtici

pant

s.

Pag

e 11

of 1

5Ju

ne 2

010

Tab

le 1

: Inp

ut r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

p at

tend

ees(

cont

inue

d)W

orkb

ook

Num

ber*

**

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

Alte

rna-

tives

To

4.G

ener

al

agre

emen

tY

esY

es, v

ery

reas

onab

le &

pr

actic

al

Yes

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Que

stio

n th

e te

chni

cal

feas

ibili

ty o

f th

erm

al

N/A

N/A

5.Y

esY

esY

es, v

ery

muc

h in

agr

eem

ent.

-ab

solu

tely

Yes

, thi

s is

the

best

Bas

ed o

n cu

rren

t kn

owle

dge

and

the

fact

s as k

now

n an

un

ders

tood

I be

lieve

that

shou

ld

I hav

e th

e op

portu

nity

mak

e th

is d

ecis

ion.

I

wou

ld c

ome

to th

e sa

me

conc

lusi

on o

f al

tern

ativ

e #6

.

N/A

N/A

From

the

com

pany

’s

pers

pect

ive,

yes

Yes

N/A

yes

Alte

rna-

tive

Met

hods

1.Y

esY

esY

es-

Yes

Yes

, loo

ks

good

I und

erst

and

the

anal

ysis

pro

cess

an

d ho

w th

ey

arriv

ed a

t the

site

ar

eas c

hose

n

I bel

ieve

that

I do

…w

et la

nds

hydr

o ea

sem

ent

in c

ontig

uous

Yes

. I

unde

rsta

nd th

e ap

proa

ch b

ut it

w

ould

hav

e he

lped

if I

had

atte

nded

the

open

hou

se to

o.

Yes

Not

real

ly, n

o m

entio

n of

cos

t as

soci

ated

with

lo

oks l

ike

they

sa

id A

&B

bas

ed

on th

eore

tical

co

nstra

ints

wha

t th

e he

ight

co

nstra

ints

?

yes

? no

t eno

ugh

know

ledg

e on

the

subj

ect

yes

Prev

ent u

se o

f sa

me

land

s

WS-14

Term

s of R

efer

ence

for a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tprin

tW

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y R

epor

t

* Th

is c

olum

n co

rres

pond

s to

ques

tions

in th

e W

orkb

ook

liste

d on

pag

e W

S-12

and

WS-

13

**C

olum

ns 1

- 14

cor

resp

ond

toin

put r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

ppa

rtici

pant

s.

Pag

e 12

of 1

5Ju

ne 2

010

Tab

le 1

: Inp

ut r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

p at

tend

ees(

cont

inue

d)W

orkb

ook

Num

ber*

**

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

Alte

rna-

tive

Met

hods

2.Y

esY

esY

es-

Yes

Yes

I am

in a

gree

men

t en

viro

nmen

tal a

nd

phys

ical

asp

ects

ha

ve b

een

cons

ider

ed

I won

der i

f red

ar

ea to

sout

h of

hy

dro

lines

co

uld/

shou

ld b

e us

ed a

s a

begi

nnin

g po

int

befo

re la

nds a

re

used

beyo

nd

(nor

th o

f) th

e hy

dro

land

s, I

am

conv

ince

d th

at

this

is n

ot a

n op

tion.

I am

in

agre

emen

t tha

t ce

rtain

are

as

need

to b

e ex

clud

ed

yes

Pers

onal

ly, I

’d

like

to se

e in

crea

sed

buffe

r zo

ne a

roun

d th

e SW

syst

em i.

e.

high

er G

W

cond

uctiv

ities

in

frac

ture

d lim

esto

ne.

Is 2

00

m se

tbac

k th

e M

OE

min

imum

or

is it

refin

ed

from

the

uniq

ue

site

ch

arac

teris

tics?

Yes

Ease

men

t ac

cess

ibili

ty –

sitto

Exis

ting

area

are

lo

gica

l –ne

ed to

st

udy

the

area

to

cons

ider

on

addi

tion

area

s for

co

nsid

erat

ion

yes

3.Y

esY

esY

es, i

tis g

ood

it is

not

vis

ible

on

Bee

chw

ood

Rd

&

Des

oron

to R

d;

less

vis

ibili

ty o

f se

a gu

lls &

po

ssib

ly le

ss

smel

l due

to

met

hane

gas

.

-Y

es (s

ee th

e ou

tline

of

the

map

–co

uld

be m

oved

clo

ser t

o po

wer

cor

ridor

, ac

cess

road

from

D

esor

onto

whi

ch is

th

e sh

orte

st d

rive

from

401

cor

ridor

. B

uffe

r zon

e on

all

side

s (w

etla

nd,

priv

ate

area

, hyd

ro

corr

idor

, Des

oron

to

Rd.

)

Yes

Yes

–ar

eas a

ppea

r to

resp

ect t

he a

rea

avai

labl

e, a

nd fr

om

a bu

sine

ss

pers

pect

ive

it m

akes

sens

e to

de

velo

p fo

r the

long

te

rm v

iabi

lity

Yes

N/A

Yes

Indi

ffer

ent

Yes

Ease

men

t ac

cess

ibili

ty –

was

no

t inv

olve

d in

as

sess

men

t

yes

WS-15

Term

s of R

efer

ence

for a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tprin

tW

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y R

epor

t

* Th

is c

olum

n co

rres

pond

s to

ques

tions

in th

e W

orkb

ook

liste

d on

pag

e W

S-12

and

WS-

13

**C

olum

ns 1

- 14

cor

resp

ond

toin

put r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

ppa

rtici

pant

s.

Pag

e 13

of 1

5Ju

ne 2

010

Tab

le 1

: Inp

ut r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

p at

tend

ees(

cont

inue

d)W

orkb

ook

Num

ber*

**

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

Alte

rna-

tive

Met

hods

4.Tr

ansp

ort

off 4

01 –

Des

oron

to

Rd,

rath

er

than

up

Bee

chw

ood

past

re

side

nces

.

Non

eN

one,

ther

e ar

e no

oth

er

alte

rnat

ives

.

--

Two,

just

to

hav

e op

tions

All

pote

ntia

lly

viab

le m

etho

ds

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

–ou

r fu

ture

–m

ore

than

25

yea

rs –

shou

ld

be a

ntic

ipat

ed.

Why

look

ing

at

only

50

to 5

5 ha

w

hen

long

-long

te

rm i.

e., 5

0 ye

ars

inst

ead

of 2

5 lo

ok

at th

e w

hole

owne

d la

nds f

or 1

bi

g C

ofA

! Pre

vent

th

e an

xiet

y of

a

futu

re g

ener

atio

n of

hav

ing

to g

o th

roug

h th

e st

ress

of

doi

ng th

is

proc

ess a

gain

!. I

feel

that

the

new

si

te sh

ould

be

high

er a

nd

diffe

rent

ly

cont

oure

d to

pr

ovid

e m

ore

scen

ic v

iew

and

di

vers

ity o

f fut

ure

use

as p

arks

.

N/A

N/A

Mor

e th

e be

tter…

Thre

e R

’s?

?

Cri

teri

a1.

Yes

--

Yes

, I th

ink

the

impo

rtant

co

mpo

nent

s hav

e be

en c

over

ed

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

yes

N/A

2.-

-Y

esN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AR

eocc

urre

nce

of

put i

ssue

sex

pans

ion

of G

W

repe

nt?

yes

N/A

WS-16

Term

s of R

efer

ence

for a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tprin

tW

orks

hop

Sum

mar

y R

epor

t

* Th

is c

olum

n co

rres

pond

s to

ques

tions

in th

e W

orkb

ook

liste

d on

pag

e W

S-12

and

WS-

13

**C

olum

ns 1

- 14

cor

resp

ond

toin

put r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

ppa

rtici

pant

s.

Pag

e 14

of 1

5Ju

ne 2

010

Tab

le 1

: Inp

ut r

ecei

ved

from

wor

ksho

p at

tend

ees(

cont

inue

d)W

orkb

ook

Num

ber*

**

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

Cri

teri

a3.

Yes

--

Yes

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Emph

asis

on

prio

r si

te is

sues

is

need

ed

yes

N/A

4.Y

es-

-Y

esN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/Aye

sN

/A5.

Air

qual

ity

–im

p.N

oise

–le

ss

imp.

Odo

ur –

imp.

Gro

undw

ater

–im

p.

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Publ

ic

educ

atio

nN

/A

WS-17


Workshop Summary Report

Page 15 of 15

June 2010

Proposed criteria that will be used in the EA to compare alternatives and identify a preferred alternative for the new landfill footprint were discussed.

Following table provides a summary of Workshop participants‟ rating of proposed assessment criteria.

Table 2: Workshop Participant Rating of Assessment Criteria

Criteria Very Important Important Less Important

Groundwater quality Site design and operations Surface water quality Surface water quantity Air quality Odour Terrestrial ecosystems Effects from truck traffic along a access roads Continued service to customers Aquatic ecosystems Economic benefits to local municipality Effects on the cost of services to customers Effects on current and planned future land uses

Recreational facilities Archaeological resources Visual impact of the facility Effects on airport operations Noise Displacement of agriculture land Aboriginal Community Interests To be determined with aboriginal

communities

WS-18


June 2010

Appendix C.2 Workshop Notification Materials

WS-19


Consultation Record

June 2010

Appendix C.2.1 Agency Correspondence

- Follow-Up Letter Inviting the Members of the GRT to the Workshop

- Follow-Up Letter Inviting the Members of the GRT (FN Related) to the Workshop - Follow-Up Letter Inviting the Members of First Nation

Communities to the Workshop - Contact List for March 22 Letter - Correspondence (letters/emails received)

WS-20

Follow‐Up Letter Inviting Members of the GRT to the Workshop (see Table WS‐1 for list of GRT Members that follow‐up letters were sent to)

Page 1 of 2

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CANADA CORPORATION R.R. #6 1271 Beechwood Road Napanee, ON K7R 3L1 (613) 388-1057 (613) 388-2785 Fax

March 22, 2010 Name of the GRT Member Position Name of the Government Agency & Department Address City, Province, Postal Code Dear Mr./Ms. : RE: Waste Management of Canada Corporation, Beechwood Road Environmental Centre (BREC), Environmental Assessment New Landfill Footprint On March 5th, 2010, I wrote to you on behalf of Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WMCC) announcing that WMCC is seeking approval under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act to develop and operate the new landfill footprint and has commenced development of a Terms of Reference, which is an initial step in the Environmental Assessment process. A copy of the Notice of Commencement for the development of the Terms of Reference was attached with our previous correspondence dated March 5th, 2010. Our First Open House took place Wednesday March 10, 2010 at The Smiling Wilderness Family Restaurant & Palace Village, 824 Palace Road, Napanee, Ontario between 2:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. We regret that you were unable to attend our First Open House; however, as we indicated in our previous letter, there will be multiple future opportunities for you to participate and provide your input towards the development of our project. Our next public consultation event is a Workshop on alternatives and evaluation criteria, which will take place Thursday March 25, 2010 at The Smiling Wilderness Family Restaurant & Palace Village, 824 Palace Road, Suite 1, Napanee, Ontario between 6:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. (light dinner will be provided). We hope that you will be able to participate in this Workshop. Please contact me if you are planning to attend. In the coming weeks, we will be hosting other consultation events and advancing the development of the proposal. We will keep you up to date on new developments. In the near future, we will forward you proposed work plans for EA studies for your review. In addition, a member of our team will contact you by telephone to document any input you may have on this EA.

WS-21

of 2

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to ask any questions you might have. For further information, please visit our website at http://brec.wm.com or contact us at the address on this letter, phone or email [email protected]. Yours truly,

Tim Murphy, MCIP, RPP Waste Management of Canada Corporation cc: Ted O’Neill, Golder Associates Ltd.

WS-22

Follow‐Up Letter Inviting Members of the GRT (FN Related) to the Workshop (see Table WS‐1 for list of FN Related‐GRT Members that follow‐up letters were sent to)

Page 1 of 3

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CANADA CORPORATION R.R. #6 1271 Beechwood Road Napanee, ON K7R 3L1 (613) 388-1057 (613) 388-2785 Fax

March 22, 2010 Name of the GRT member Position Name of the Government Branch Address City, Province, Postal Code Dear Mr./Ms. : RE: Waste Management of Canada Corporation, Beechwood Road Environmental Centre (BREC), Environmental Assessment New Landfill Footprint On March 5th, 2010, I wrote to you on behalf of Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WMCC) announcing that WMCC is seeking approval under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act to develop and operate the new landfill footprint and has commenced development of a Terms of Reference, which is an initial step in the Environmental Assessment process. A copy of the Notice of Commencement for the development of the Terms of Reference was attached with our previous correspondence dated March 5th, 2010. Our First Open House took place Wednesday March 10, 2010 at The Smiling Wilderness Family Restaurant & Palace Village, 824 Palace Road, Napanee, Ontario between 2:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. We regret that you were unable to attend our First Open House; however, as we indicated in our previous letter, there will be multiple future opportunities for you to participate and provide your input towards the development of our project. Our next public consultation event is a Workshop on alternatives and evaluation criteria, which will take place Thursday March 25, 2010 at The Smiling Wilderness Family Restaurant & Palace Village, 824 Palace Road, Suite 1, Napanee, Ontario between 6:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. (light dinner will be provided). We hope that you will be able to participate in this Workshop. Please contact me if you are planning to attend. In the coming weeks, we will be hosting other consultation events and advancing the development of the proposal. We will keep you up to date on new developments. We have attached the list of aboriginal communities and groups that were notified as a part of the project’s consultation process for your review. If you feel that any additional aboriginal communities or groups should be notified of this EA, please let us know. In addition, a member of our team will contact you by telephone to document any input you may have on this EA.

WS-23

of 3

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to ask any questions you might have. For further information, please visit our website at http://brec.wm.com or contact us at the address on this letter, phone or email [email protected]. Yours truly,

Tim Murphy, MCIP, RPP Waste Management of Canada Corporation

cc: Ted O’Neill, Golder Associates Ltd.

Attachment: List of First Nation Groups Contacted

WS-24

of 3

List of First Nation Groups Contacted

First Nation Chief

Alderville First Nation P. O. Box 46, R.R. #4 ROSENEATH, Ontario KOK 2XO

Chief James R. Marsden Ph: (905) 352‐2011 Fax: (905) 352‐3242 [email protected]

Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation P.O. Box 100 Pikwakanagan, GOLDEN LAKE, Ontario K0J 1X0

Chief Kirby Whiteduck Ph: (613) 625-2800 Fax: (613) 625-1149 [email protected]

Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) 5884 Rama Rd. Suite 200 RAMA, ON L0K 1T0

Chief Sharon Stinson Henry Ph: (705) 325-3611 Fax: (705) 325-0879 [email protected]

Curve Lake First Nation 22 Winookeeda Road CURVE LAKE, ON KOL 1RO

Chief Keith Knott Ph: (705) 657‐8045 Fax: (705) 657‐8708 [email protected]

Hiawatha First Nation 123 Paudash Street R. R. #2 KEENE, ON KOL 2GO

Chief Laurie Carr Ph: (705) 295‐4421 Fax: (705) 295‐4424 [email protected]

Mississaugas of Scugog Island 22521 Island Road PORT PERRY, ON L9L 1B6

Chief Tracy Gauthier Ph: (905) 985‐1940 Fax: (905) 985‐8828 [email protected]

Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte 13 Old York Road R. R. #1, DESERONTO, ON KOK 1XO

Chief R. Donald Maracle Ph: (613) 396‐3424 ext. 121 Fax: (613) 396‐3627 rdonm@mbq‐tmt.org

Wendat‐Huron First Nations 255 Place Chef Michel Laveau Wendake (Québec) G0A 4V0 CANADA

Chief Konrad Sioui [email protected]

WS-25

Follow-Up Letter Inviting Members of First Nation Communities to the Workshop (see Table WS-1 for list of First Nation communities that follow-up letters were sent to)

Page 1 of 2

WASTE MANAGEMENT

OF CANADA CORPORATION

R.R. #6 1271 Beechwood Road Napanee, ON K7R 3L1 (613) 388-1057 (613) 388-2785 Fax

March 22, 2010 Name of the FN Chief/Contact Person Name of the First Nation Group Address City, Province, Postal Code Dear Chief/Mr. : RE: Waste Management of Canada Corporation, Beechwood Road Environmental Centre (BREC), Environmental Assessment New Landfill Footprint On March 5

th, 2010, I wrote to you on behalf of Waste Management of Canada Corporation (WMCC) announcing

that WMCC is seeking approval under Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act to develop and operate the new landfill footprint and has commenced development of a Terms of Reference, which is an initial step in the Environmental Assessment process. A copy of the Notice of Commencement for the development of the Terms of Reference was attached with our previous correspondence dated March 5

th, 2010.

Our First Open House took place Wednesday March 10, 2010 at The Smiling Wilderness Family Restaurant & Palace Village, 824 Palace Road, Napanee, Ontario between 2:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. We regret that you were unable to attend our First Open House; however, as we indicated in our previous letter, there will be multiple future opportunities for you to participate and provide your input towards the development of our project. Our next public consultation event is a Workshop on alternatives and evaluation criteria, which will take place Thursday March 25, 2010 at The Smiling Wilderness Family Restaurant & Palace Village, 824 Palace Road, Suite 1, Napanee, Ontario between 6:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. (light dinner will be provided). We hope that you will be able to participate in this Workshop. Please contact me if you are planning to attend. In the coming weeks, we will be hosting other consultation events and advancing the development of the proposal. Consultation with First Nations communities is an important element of the Environmental Assessment process. Should you or your council wish to become involved in the EA process or discuss the project, we would be pleased to work with you at another venue to develop and carry out separate events specifically designed to engage your community in meaningful discussions concerning the project. Contact me if you would like to develop a separate consultation event(s).

WS-26

of 2

Please let us know if you are interested in engaging in discussions and providing input to our project. We will keep you up to date on new developments. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions. For further information, please visit our website at http://brec.wm.com or contact us at the address on this letter, phone or email [email protected]. Yours truly,

Tim Murphy, MCIP, RPP Waste Management of Canada Corporation cc: Ted O’Neill, Golder Associates Ltd.

WS-27

Table W

S‐1: C

ontact List for March 22 Letter – Follo

w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 1 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

PR

OV

INC

IAL

AG

EN

CIE

S &

MIN

IST

RIE

S

Ont

ario

Pow

er G

ener

atio

n 1.

M

r. S

teve

Hou

nsel

l, S

enio

r A

dvis

or,

Sus

tain

able

Dev

elop

men

t O

ntar

io P

ower

Gen

erat

ion

700

Uni

vers

ity

Ave

. T

oron

to O

N M

5G 1

X6

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: (

416)

592

-276

6 F

: (41

6) 5

92-7

097

stev

e.ho

unse

ll@

opg.

com

Pro

ject

s w

ithi

n 2

km o

f an

O

PG

gen

erat

ing

site

or

that

co

uld

pote

ntia

lly

dire

ctly

im

pact

any

Ont

ario

Pow

er

Gen

erat

ion

gene

rati

ng s

ite.

I

f un

sure

, con

tact

OP

G

befo

re s

endi

ng d

ocum

ents

.

2.

Qui

nte

Con

serv

atio

n

2061

Old

Hig

hway

2,

R

. R. #

2, B

elle

vill

e

ON

C

anad

a

K8N

4Z

2

T

613-

968-

3434

F

613-

968-

8240

Min

istr

y of

Agr

icul

ture

Foo

d an

d R

ural

Aff

airs

3.

M

r. D

avid

Coo

per,

Man

ager

E

nvir

onm

enta

l & L

and

Use

Pol

icy

Min

istr

y of

Agr

icul

ture

, Foo

d an

d R

ural

Aff

airs

1

Sto

ne R

oad

W, 3

rd F

loor

G

uelp

h O

N N

1G 4

Y2

1 ha

rd c

opy

of P

aren

t C

lass

EA

s or

pr

ovin

ce-

wid

e do

cum

ents

.

T: (

519)

826

-311

7 F

: (51

9) 8

26-3

109

davi

d.co

oper

@on

tari

o.ca

All

Par

ent C

lass

EA

s an

d ex

empt

ions

or

acti

viti

es o

f a

prov

ince

-wid

e ap

plic

atio

n af

fect

ing

agri

cult

ural

op

erat

ions

, spe

cial

ty c

rop

soil

s or

Cla

ss 1

-3

Agr

icul

tura

l lan

d.

Indi

vidu

al E

As

and

Cla

ss

EA

s af

fect

ing

agri

cult

ural

op

erat

ions

, spe

cial

ty c

rop

soil

s an

d C

lass

es 1

-3

Agr

icul

tura

l lan

ds, e

xcep

t in

urb

an d

esig

nati

ons,

and

al

l was

te E

As

WS-28

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 2 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

4.

Mr.

Ray

Val

aiti

s, R

ural

Pla

nner

C

entr

al a

nd N

orth

Reg

ion

Ont

ario

Min

istr

y of

Agr

icul

ture

, F

ood

and

Rur

al A

ffai

rs

RR

#3,

95

Dun

das

Str

eet,

B

righ

ton

ON

0K

1H

0

1 ha

rd c

opy

Pho

ne: 6

13-4

75-4

764

Fax

: 613

-475

-383

5 ra

y.va

lait

is@

onta

rio.

ca

Pro

ject

s m

eeti

ng a

bove

cr

iter

ia in

Nor

th R

egio

n,

whi

ch c

over

s up

per-

tier

m

unic

ipal

itie

s of

Mus

koka

an

d N

ippi

ssin

g no

rthw

ard.

C

entr

al R

egio

n co

vers

m

unic

ipal

itie

s of

Tor

onto

, Y

ork,

and

Sim

coe

east

to

Has

ting

s an

d L

enno

x &

A

ddin

gton

incl

udin

g P

eter

boro

ugh

area

.

Min

istr

y of

Ene

rgy

and

Infr

astr

uctu

re

5.

Ala

n Je

nkin

s Sr

. Pol

icy

Spec

ialis

t E

nerg

y S

uppl

y an

d C

ompe

titi

on

Bra

nch

Min

istr

y of

Ene

rgy

and

Infr

astr

uctu

re

880

Bay

Str

eet 3

rd f

loor

T

oron

to, O

N, M

7A 2

C1

1 ha

rd c

opy

T:4

16-3

25-6

926

F: 4

16-3

25-6

972

All

an.je

nkin

s@on

tari

o.ca

Par

ent c

lass

EA

s In

divi

dual

and

Cla

ss E

A

wit

h en

ergy

impl

icat

ions

or

ener

gy-r

elat

ed (

incl

udin

g la

ndfi

ll g

as)

6.

Kev

in P

al

Man

ager

S

trat

egic

Pol

icy

Bra

nch

Min

istr

y of

Ene

rgy

and

Infr

astr

uctu

re

880

Bay

Str

eet 6

th f

loor

T

oron

to, O

N, M

7A 2

C1

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: 4

16-3

27-7

204

F: 4

16-3

27-7

204

Kev

in.p

al@

onta

rio.

ca

All

par

ent,

indi

vidu

al a

nd

clas

s E

As

WS-29

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 3 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

7.

Ms.

Tija

Dir

ks, D

irec

tor

Gro

wth

Pol

icy,

Pla

nnin

g an

d A

naly

sis

Ont

ario

Gro

wth

Sec

reta

riat

M

inis

try

of E

nerg

y an

d In

fras

truc

ture

77

7 B

ay S

tree

t 4th

flo

or

Tor

onto

, ON

, M5G

2E

5

1 ha

rd c

opy

416-

325-

1546

F

416

-325

-740

3 T

ija.

dirk

s@on

tari

o.ca

Con

tact

to s

ee if

they

hav

e an

inte

rest

in th

e E

A

M

inis

try

of C

ultu

re

8.

M

s. K

arla

Bar

boza

, Her

itag

e A

dvis

er

Cul

ture

Ser

vice

s U

nit

Pro

gram

s an

d S

ervi

ces

Bra

nch

Min

istr

y of

Cul

ture

40

0 U

nive

rsit

y A

venu

e, 4

th F

loor

T

oron

to O

N M

7A 2

R9

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: (

416)

314

-712

0 F

: (41

6) 3

14-7

790

karl

a.ba

rboz

a@m

ci.g

ov.o

n.ca

Sen

d al

l pro

vinc

e-w

ide

or

gene

ral E

A in

itia

tive

s (i

.e.

Par

ent C

lass

EA

s) f

or

com

men

t and

coo

rdin

atio

n on

gen

eral

her

itag

e im

pact

.

Out

of

Off

ice

9.

Mr.

Chr

is A

nder

sen,

Her

itag

e P

lann

er

Cul

tura

l Ser

vice

s U

nit,

Pro

gram

s an

d S

ervi

ces

Bra

nch

Min

istr

y of

Cul

ture

, 40

0 U

nive

rsit

y A

ve. 4

th F

loor

T

oron

to O

N M

7A 2

R9

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: (

416)

314

-715

9 F

: (41

6) 2

12-1

802

Chr

is.a

nder

sen@

onta

rio.

ca

All

indi

vidu

al a

nd C

lass

E

As

in E

aste

rn a

nd

Nor

thea

ster

n O

ntar

io –

E

aste

rn O

ntar

io c

over

s up

per-

and

sin

gle-

tier

m

unic

ipal

itie

s fr

om Q

uint

e W

est,

Has

ting

s an

d R

enfr

ew e

astw

ard

to

Que

bec;

incl

. Ott

awa

and

Kin

gsto

n ar

eas.

N

orth

east

ern

Ont

ario

co

vers

. Par

ry S

ound

, S

udbu

ry, N

ipis

sing

, T

imis

kam

ing,

Coc

hran

e,

Alg

oma

and

Man

itou

lin.

WS-30

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 4 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

10.

Ms.

Mar

y B

each

, Man

ager

E

ast R

egio

n M

inis

trie

s of

Cit

izen

ship

and

Im

mig

rati

on, C

ultu

re, T

ouri

sm a

nd

Hea

lth

Pro

mot

ion

34

7 P

rest

on S

tree

t, 4th

Flo

or

Ott

awa

ON

K1S

6B

7

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: (

613)

742

-336

6 F

: (61

3) 7

42-5

300

mar

y.be

ach@

onta

rio.

ca

All

indi

vidu

al a

nd C

lass

E

As

in E

ast R

egio

n w

hich

co

vers

upp

er-

and

sing

le-

tier

mun

icip

alit

ies

of

Nor

thum

berl

and,

Kaw

arth

a L

akes

, and

Hal

ibur

ton

east

war

d in

clud

ing

Ott

awa,

K

ings

ton

and

Pet

erbo

roug

h ar

eas.

M

inis

try

of T

ouri

sm

11

.M

r. D

arry

l Sos

hyck

i, M

anag

er

Str

ateg

ic &

Cor

pora

te P

olic

y U

nit

Tou

rism

Pol

icy

and

Res

earc

h B

ranc

h M

inis

try

of T

ouri

sm

15th

Flo

or, 7

00 B

ay S

tree

t T

oron

to O

N M

7A 2

E1

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: (

416)

212

-167

6 F

: (41

6) 3

14-7

341

Dar

ryl.s

oshy

cki@

onta

rio.

ca

All

Par

ent C

lass

EA

s an

d in

divi

dual

and

Cla

ss E

As

of

prov

ince

-wid

e or

hig

h-le

vel

of s

igni

fica

nce

(e.g

. int

er-

prov

inci

al b

ridg

es).

12.

Mr.

Ger

ry W

ebbe

r, C

oord

inat

or

Res

ourc

e-ba

sed

Tou

rism

Uni

t T

ouri

sm P

olic

y an

d R

esea

rch

Bra

nch

Min

istr

y of

Tou

rism

S

uite

401

, 199

Lar

ch S

tree

t S

udbu

ry O

N P

3E 6

A5

Pre

fers

E

lect

roni

c

T: 7

05-5

64-3

175

F: 7

05-6

77-4

019

Ger

ry.w

ebbe

r@on

tari

o.ca

All

Par

ent C

lass

EA

s an

d C

lass

EA

s an

d in

divi

dual

E

As

of p

rovi

nce-

wid

e or

hi

gh-l

evel

of

sign

ific

ance

(e

.g. i

nter

-pro

vinc

ial

brid

ges)

.

M

inis

try

of H

ealth

Pro

mot

ion

13.

Mr.

Cra

ig S

tew

art,

Man

ager

R

ecre

atio

n U

nit

Spo

rts

and

Rec

reat

ion

Bra

nch

Min

istr

y of

Hea

lth

Pro

mot

ion

18th

Flo

or, 3

93 U

nive

rsit

y A

venu

e T

oron

to O

N M

7A 2

S1

1 ha

rd c

opy

Cra

ig.s

tew

art@

onta

rio.

ca

All

Par

ent C

lass

EA

s if

th

ey m

ay h

ave

impl

icat

ions

fo

r re

crea

tion

al u

se o

f la

nd.

WS-31

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 5 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

M

inis

try

of E

duca

tion

14.

Mr.

Ste

ven

Mit

chel

l, O

.A.A

., A

rchi

tect

P

upil

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Uni

t B

usin

ess

Ser

vice

s B

ranc

h M

inis

try

of E

duca

tion

21

st F

loor

, Mow

at B

lock

, 900

Bay

S

tree

t T

oron

to O

N M

7A 1

L2

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: (

416)

325

-201

5 F

: (41

6) 3

25-4

024

Ste

ven.

mit

chel

l@on

tari

o.ca

All

Par

ent C

lass

EA

s or

pr

ovin

ce-w

ide

EA

mat

ters

..

15.

Lim

esto

ne D

istr

ict S

choo

l Boa

rd

Hel

en C

hadw

ick

Cha

ir

220

Por

tsm

outh

Ave

Kin

gsto

n, O

N K

7L 4

X4

61

3-54

4-69

20

inq@

lim

esto

ne.o

n.ca

16.

Has

tings

/ Pr

ince

Edw

ard

Cou

nty

Dis

tric

t Sch

ool B

oard

M

ike

Bra

nt

P.O

. Box

66,

70

Sha

nnon

vill

e R

oad

T

yend

inag

a M

ohaw

k T

erri

tory

, ON

K

0K 3

A0

Ele

ctor

al a

rea:

Tye

ndin

aga

/ M

ohaw

k T

erri

tory

P

hone

: +1

613

962-

3595

Em

ail:

m

bran

t@hp

edsb

.on.

ca

17.

Has

ting

s/P

rinc

e E

dwar

d D

istr

ict

Sch

ool B

oard

15

6 A

nn S

t. B

elle

vill

e, O

N K

8N 1

N9

M

inis

try

of H

ealth

and

Lon

g-T

erm

Car

e

18.

Dr.

Ian

Gem

mil

l M

edic

al O

ffic

er o

f H

ealt

h K

ings

ton,

Fro

nten

ac a

nd L

enno

x &

A

ddin

gton

Hea

lth

Uni

t

22

1 P

orts

mou

th A

venu

e,

Kin

gsto

n, O

N K

7M 1

V5

WS-32

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 6 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

19.

Med

ical

Off

icer

of

Hea

lth:

D

r. R

icha

rd S

chab

as

Has

tings

& P

rinc

e E

dwar

d C

ount

ies H

ealth

Uni

t

179

Nor

th P

ark

Str

eet

Bel

levi

lle,

ON

K8P

4P

1

Web

: htt

p://

ww

w.h

pech

u.on

.ca/

Tel

: (61

3) 9

66-5

500

Fax

: (61

3) 9

66-9

418

20.

Boa

rd o

f H

ealt

h C

hair

: R

on H

amil

ton

Has

tings

& P

rinc

e E

dwar

d C

ount

ieH

ealth

Uni

t

179

Nor

th P

ark

Str

eet

Bel

levi

lle,

ON

K8P

4P

1

T

el: (

613)

966

-550

0

Fax

: (61

3) 9

66-9

418

21.

Kin

gsto

n K

FL

&A

Pub

lic

Hea

lth

221

Por

tsm

outh

Ave

nue

Kin

gsto

n, O

N

K7M

1V

5

1 ha

rd c

opy

Tel

epho

ne: 6

13-5

49-1

232

Tol

l Fre

e: 1

-800

-267

-787

5 F

ax: 6

13-5

49-7

896

22.

Nap

anee

K

FL

&A

Pub

lic

Hea

lth

41 D

unda

s S

tree

t N

apan

ee, O

N

K7R

1Z

5

1 ha

rd c

opy

Tel

epho

ne: 6

13-3

54-3

357

Fax

: 613

-354

-626

7

23.

Dr.

Ian

Gam

mil

l M

edic

al O

ffic

er o

f H

ealt

h K

FL

&A

Hea

lth

Uni

t 22

1 P

orts

mou

th A

ve

Kin

gsto

n, O

ntar

io K

7M 1

V5

WS-33

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 7 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

24.

Han

k B

lok

C.P

.H.I

.(C

) S

enio

r P

ubli

c H

ealt

h In

spec

tor

41 D

unda

s S

tree

t Wes

t N

apan

ee O

ntar

io

K7R

1Z

5

1 ha

rd c

opy

hblo

k@kf

lapu

blic

heal

th.c

a

M

inis

try

of M

unic

ipal

Aff

airs

and

Hou

sing

25.

Pet

erse

n, K

en

Pla

nnin

g In

nova

tion

Sec

tion

P

rovi

ncia

l Pla

nnin

g P

olic

y B

ranc

h M

inis

try

of M

unic

ipal

Aff

airs

&

Hou

sing

77

7 B

ay S

tree

t, 14

th F

loor

T

oron

to O

N M

5G 2

E5

K

en.P

eter

sen@

onta

rio.

ca

26.

Mr.

Mic

hael

Elm

s, M

anag

er

Eas

tern

Mun

icip

al S

ervi

ces

Off

ice

Min

istr

y of

Mun

icip

al A

ffai

rs

&H

ousi

ng

Com

mun

ity

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent

8 E

stat

e L

ane,

Roc

kwoo

d H

ouse

K

ings

ton

ON

K7M

9A

8

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: (

613)

545

-213

2 F

: (61

3) 5

48-6

822

Mic

hael

.elm

s@on

tari

o.ca

Pro

ject

s m

eeti

ng a

bove

cr

iter

ia in

upp

er-

and

sing

le-t

ier

mun

icip

alit

ies

of

Has

ting

s an

d R

enfr

ew

east

war

d in

clud

ing

the

Ott

awa

and

Kin

gsto

n ar

eas

WS-34

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 8 of 11

Nam

e, P

ositi

on, A

genc

y an

d

Add

ress

D

ocum

ent

Form

Ph

one,

fax,

and

e-

mai

l T

ypes

of E

A P

roje

cts t

o be

C

ircu

late

d

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

So

uthe

rn R

egio

n

27

.P

eter

boro

ugh

Dis

tric

t M

inis

try

of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

R

iver

side

Dri

ve, P

.O. B

ox 2

20

Pet

erbo

roug

h, O

N K

8A 6

X4

Att

: K

atie

Nov

acek

, Dis

tric

t Pla

nner

2 ha

rd c

opie

s T

: (70

5) 7

55-3

294

F: (

705)

755

-312

5 K

atie

.nov

acek

@on

tari

o,ca

All

indi

vidu

al o

r C

lass

EA

s in

Dis

tric

t whi

ch c

over

s up

per-

and

sin

gle-

tier

m

unic

ipal

itie

s P

rinc

e E

dwar

d C

ount

y, K

awar

tha

Lak

es, N

orth

umbe

rlan

d an

d th

e so

uthe

rn h

alve

s of

P

eter

boro

ugh,

Has

ting

s,

Len

nox

and

Add

ingt

on a

nd

Fro

nten

ac.

G

over

nmen

t Rev

iew

Tea

m L

ist f

or A

bori

gina

l Inf

orm

atio

n

1.

Mr.

Fre

d H

oski

ng

Sen

ior

Cla

ims

Ana

lyst

S

peci

fic

Cla

ims

Bra

nch

Ont

ario

Res

earc

h T

eam

D

epar

tmen

t of

Indi

an a

nd

Nor

ther

n A

ffai

rs

10 W

elli

ngto

n S

t., R

oom

131

0 G

atin

eau

QU

K1A

0H

4

Gov

ernm

ent

Inpu

t T

: (81

9) 9

53-1

940

F: (

819)

997

-987

3 ho

skin

gf@

inac

.gc.

ca

DO

NO

T s

end

enti

re E

A

docu

men

t. S

end

map

and

le

gal d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e un

dert

akin

g. C

onta

cts

wil

l pr

ovid

e in

put o

n fe

dera

l sp

ecif

ic c

laim

s.

Spec

ific

Cla

ims M

ap

upda

ted

quar

terl

y

Spec

ific

Cla

ims

Info

rmat

ion

M

inis

try

of A

bori

gina

l Aff

airs

(MM

A)

2.

Pam

Whe

aton

, Dir

ecto

r

Abo

rigi

nal &

Min

istr

y R

elat

ions

hips

B

ranc

h M

inis

try

of A

bori

gina

l Aff

airs

72

0 B

ay S

tree

t, 4t

h F

loor

T

oron

to O

N M

5G 2

K1

1 ha

rd c

opy

T: (

416)

326

-405

3 F

: (41

6) 3

26-4

017

Pam

.Whe

aton

@O

ntar

io.c

a

Any

pro

ject

s m

eeti

ng e

ithe

r of

fol

low

ing

crit

eria

: -

pote

ntia

lly

affe

ctin

g fi

rst

Nat

ion

Com

mun

itie

s w

here

la

nd c

laim

s or

liti

gati

on a

re

invo

lved

. -

pote

ntia

lly

affe

ctin

g C

row

n la

nd a

nd r

esou

rces

us

age.

WS-35

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 9 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

3.

Tec

hnic

al C

onta

ct (s

ame

offic

e):

Fra

ncoi

s L

acha

nce

Sen

ior

Pol

icy

Adv

isor

T

: (41

6) 3

26-4

754

fran

cois

.lach

ance

@

onta

rio.

ca

4.

Fra

nkli

n R

oy, D

irec

tor

Lit

igat

ion

Man

agem

ent a

nd

Res

olut

ion

Bra

nch

Dep

artm

ent o

f In

dian

and

Nor

ther

n A

ffai

rs

10 W

elli

ngto

n S

t.,

25 E

ddie

143

0 G

atin

eau

QC

K1A

0H

4

Gov

ernm

ent

Inpu

t T

: (81

9) 9

97-3

582

F: (

819)

997

-167

9 ro

yf@

inac

.gc.

ca

DO

NO

T se

nd e

ntir

e E

A

docu

men

t. S

end

map

and

le

gal d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e un

dert

akin

g.

Con

tact

s w

ill p

rovi

de in

put

on f

eder

al li

tiga

tion

.

Res

pons

e re

ceiv

ed fr

om:

Jose

e B

eaur

egar

d

Req

uest

: rem

ove

Fra

nkli

n R

oy a

nd

add

him

to th

e co

ntac

t lis

t

5.

Jose

e B

eaur

egar

d L

itig

atio

n T

eam

Lea

der

Eas

tern

Lit

igat

ion

Dir

ecto

rate

O

ntar

io/ N

unav

ut T

eam

In

dian

and

Nor

ther

n A

ffai

rs

Lit

igat

ion

Man

agem

ent a

nd

Res

olut

ion

Bra

nch

25 E

ddy

Str

eet

Gat

inea

u, Q

uebe

cK1A

0H

4

DO

NO

T se

nd e

ntir

e E

A

docu

men

t. S

end

map

and

le

gal d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e un

dert

akin

g.

Con

tact

s w

ill p

rovi

de in

put

on f

eder

al li

tiga

tion

.

6.

Mr.

Gre

gg D

ahl

Sen

ior

Pol

icy

Ana

lyst

O

ffic

e of

the

Fed

eral

Int

erlo

cuto

r fo

r M

étis

and

non

-sta

tus

Indi

ans

66 S

late

r S

tree

t - R

oom

121

8 O

ttaw

a O

N K

1A 0

H4

Gov

ernm

ent

Inpu

t T

: (61

3) 9

92-3

705

F: (

613)

996

-173

7 da

hlg@

inac

.gc.

ca

DO

NO

T s

end

enti

re E

A

docu

men

t. S

end

map

and

le

gal d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e un

dert

akin

g

7.

Mei

sh P

odlo

g S

enio

r N

egot

iato

r M

inis

try

of A

bori

gina

l Aff

airs

16

0 B

loor

St.

E, S

uite

400

T

oron

to, O

N

M7A

2E

1

Ont

ario

pr

ojec

t m

anag

er f

or

the

Alg

onqu

in

clai

m

nego

tiat

ions

tel:

416

-326

-477

5 fa

x: 4

16-3

26-4

017

WS-36

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 10 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

L

ist o

f Abo

rigi

nal G

roup

s of I

nter

est

1.

Ald

ervi

lle

Fir

st N

atio

n

P. O

. Box

46,

R.R

. #4

RO

SE

NE

AT

H, O

ntar

io

KO

K 2

XO

Chi

ef J

ames

R. M

arsd

en

1 ha

rd c

opy

Ph:

(90

5) 3

52-2

011

Fax

: (90

5) 3

52-3

242

jbm

arsd

en@

eagl

e.ca

Oge

maw

ahj

2.

Alg

onqu

ins

of P

ikw

akan

agan

Fir

st

Nat

ion

P.O

. Box

100

Pik

wak

anag

an,

GO

LD

EN

LA

KE

, Ont

ario

K

0J 1

X0

1 ha

rd c

opy

Chi

ef K

irby

Whi

tedu

ck

Ph:

(61

3) 6

25-2

800

F

ax: (

613)

625

-114

9 ch

iefc

ounc

il@

pikw

akan

agan

.ca

N/A

C

hipp

ewas

of

Mnj

ikan

ing

(Ram

a)

5884

Ram

a R

d.

Sui

te 2

00 R

AM

A, O

N

L0K

1T

0

1 ha

rd c

opy

Chi

ef S

haro

n S

tins

on H

enry

P

h: (

705)

325

-361

1

Fax

: (70

5) 3

25-0

879

chie

f@m

njik

anin

g.ca

Oge

maw

ahj

Sen

t let

ter

by F

red

Jahn

Mar

ch 1

1 in

dica

ting

inte

rest

in

get

ting

invo

lved

3.

Fre

d Ja

hn

Dir

ecto

r of

Fac

ilit

ies

and

Ope

rati

ons

Chi

ppew

as o

f R

ama

Fir

st N

atio

n 58

84 R

ama

Rd.

S

uite

200

RA

MA

, ON

L

0K 1

T0

F

red

Jahn

D

irec

tor

of F

acil

itie

s an

d O

pera

tion

s

Ph:

(70

5) 3

25-3

611

x 15

40

Fax

: (70

5) 3

25-0

879

Fre

d.ja

hn@

ram

afir

stna

tion

.ca

WS-37

Table W

S‐1: C


w‐up and W

orkshop In

vitation Letter

Page 11 of 11

N

ame,

Pos

ition

, Age

ncy

and

A

ddre

ss

Doc

umen

t Fo

rm

Phon

e, fa

x, a

nd

e-m

ail

Typ

es o

f EA

Pro

ject

s to

be

Cir

cula

ted

Mar

ch 5

lett

er

resp

onse

4.

Cur

ve L

ake

Fir

st N

atio

n

22 W

inoo

keed

a R

oad

CU

RV

E L

AK

E, O

N

KO

L 1

RO

1 ha

rd c

opy

Chi

ef K

eith

Kno

tt

Ph:

(70

5) 6

57-8

045

F

ax: (

705)

657

-870

8 ti

ffan

y@cu

rvel

akef

n.ca

N/A

5.

Hia

wat

ha F

irst

Nat

ion

123

Pau

dash

Str

eet

R. R

. #2

KE

EN

E, O

N

KO

L 2

GO

1 ha

rd c

opy

Chi

ef L

auri

e C

arr

Ph:

(70

5) 2

95-4

421

F

ax: (

705)

295

-442

4 lc

arr@

hiaw

atha

fn.c

a

UIC

6.

Mis

siss

auga

s of

S

cugo

g Is

land

22

521

Isla

nd R

oad

P

OR

T P

ER

RY

, ON

L

9L 1

B6

1 ha

rd c

opy

Chi

ef T

racy

Gau

thie

r P

h: (

905)

985

-194

0 F

ax: (

905)

985

-882

8 tg

auth

ier@

scug

ogfi

rstn

atio

n.co

m

Oge

maw

ahj

7.

Moh

awks

of

the

Bay

of

Qui

nte

13

Old

Yor

k R

oad

R

. R. #

1, D

ES

ER

ON

TO

, ON

K

OK

1X

O

1 ha

rd c

opy

Chi

ef R

. Don

ald

Mar

acle

P

h: (

613)

396

-342

4

ext

. 121

F

ax: (

613)

396

-362

7 rd

onm

@m

bq-t

mt.o

rg

N/A

8.

Wen

dat-

Hur

on F

irst

Nat

ions

25

5 P

lace

Che

f M

iche

l Lav

eau

Wen

dake

(Q

uébe

c)

G0A

4V

0 C

AN

AD

A

C

hief

Kon

rad

Sio

ui

adm

inis

trat

ion@

cnhw

.qc.

ca

WS-38

Workshop Correspondence with a Member of the GRT

Page 1 of 1

From: O'Neill, Ted Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:30 AM To: Mundie, Donna (OMAFRA); Valaitis, Ray (OMAFRA) Cc: Weerasinghe, Bhagya Subject: RE: Waste Management of Canada Corporation, Beechwood Road Environmental Centre, EA New Landfill Footprint Thank you, we will make the contact name change. Ted

J.E. (Ted) O'Neill (B.Sc. (Hon.)) | Associate, Environmental Assessment & Biology Group Manager| Golder Associates Ltd. 32 Steacie Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2A9 T: [+1] (613) 592 9600 | F: [+1] (613) 592 9601 | C: [+1] 613 799 7109 | E: [email protected] | www.golder.com

From: Mundie, Donna (OMAFRA) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:33 PM To: Valaitis, Ray (OMAFRA); O'Neill, Ted Subject: RE: Waste Management of Canada Corporation, Beechwood Road Environmental Centre, EA New Landfill Footprint

Thanks for the notice. Ray Valaitis is the OMAFRA contact for this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call.

From: BREC [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 5:04 PM To: Mundie, Donna (OMAFRA) Subject: RE: Waste Management of Canada Corporation, Beechwood Road Environmental Centre, EA New Landfill Footprint Dear Ms. Mundie: On behalf of Waste Management of Canada, we are sending you the attached letter to inform you of the progress of the Environmental Assessment for the Beechwood Road Environmental Centre (BREC) New Landfill Footprint, because you have been identified as a member of the Government Review Team for Environmental Assessments in Ontario. Please contact the undersigned if you have any difficult opening the attached files or have any questions. A hard copy of the letter is being sent to you by regular mail. Ted O’Neill

J.E. (Ted) O'Neill (B.Sc. (Hon.)) | Associate, Environmental Assessment & Biology Group Manager| Golder Associates Ltd. 32 Steacie Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2A9 T: [+1] (613) 592 9600 | F: [+1] (613) 592 9601 | C: [+1] 613 799 7109 | E: [email protected] | www.golder.com

WS-39


Page 1 of 1

From: Dea, Jeffrey (ENE) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:36 AM To: Murphy, Tim - BUR Cc: [email protected]; Shoniker, Blair Subject: Ottawa Tim, Further to our discussion last Friday, pls. find attached mapping that shows the area of interest for the Huron Wendat First Nation. Looks like it’s fairly close to Ottawa. I’ll try to find out more about that and will follow-up. Also, pls. note that the Curve Lake First Nation has requested that EA related materials being sent to them be provided by e-mail, if possible. The e-mail address that you should use is: [email protected] Regards, Jeff. D. Jeffrey Dea Project Officer EA Project Coordination Section Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Ave. W., Floor 12A Toronto ON M4V 1L5 t: 416-314-7213 / 1-800-461-6290 f: 416-314-8452 e: [email protected]

Waste Management recycles enough paper every year to save 41 million trees. By not printing this email, you can help save even more.

WS-40


Page 1 of 1

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: March 24, 2010 2:08 PM To: BREC Subject: Information from BREC website: * Name : Michael Schmitt * Address : 151 Dairy Ave * City : Napanee * Province : ON * Postal Code : K7R 4B2 * Email : [email protected] ------------------------------------------- Comments: thank you for the invitation to attend the session of March 25; I am unable to attend as I will be out of town; I should inform you that a group has approached our board to seek our voice in halting this project. Of course the board is not prepared to become politically involved as we are not in a position to make any judgements at this time. Keeping us in the information loop will be very important so that my team and the trustees have information that is accurate. thank you Michael Schmitt, Director of Education, ALCDSB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Waste Management recycles enough paper every year to save 41 million trees. By not printing this email, you can help save even more.

WS-42

Workshop Correspondence with a

Member of the GRT (FN related)

page 1 of 2

WS-43

SGagnon

Typewritten Text

SGagnon

Typewritten Text

page 1 of 2

of 2WS-44

SGagnon

Typewritten Text

page 2 of 2

SGagnon

Typewritten Text


Page 1 of 1

From: Cooper, Linda - KIN [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:29 AM To: O'Neill, Ted; Weerasinghe, Bhagya; Murphy, Tim - BUR Subject: Fw: Waste Management Workshop

I received this out of office from the Limestone Bd - so I called them this am and asked what was the best way to get info to the School Bd (Helen Chadwick is a trustee) in a timely fashion. Mail is the best way - it just needs to be sooner than last time - these folks have day jobs and just pick up there correspondence - including referred emails - when they are in which is not every day.

From: Jane N. Douglas <[email protected]> To: Cooper, Linda - KIN Sent: Wed Mar 31 16:42:00 2010 Subject: Re: Waste Management Workshop

I am away from the office from March 24 - April 5, 2010, and returning April 6. Messages received will not be processed or forwarded during this time. If your enquiry is of an urgent nature, please call the LDSB Education Centre directly at 613.544.6920 for assistance.


WS-45

Ministry of Tourism and Culture Cultural Services Unit, 4th Fl. 400 University Ave Toronto, ON M7A 2R9

Ministre du Tourisme et de la Culture 400, avenue University Toronto, ON M7A 2R9

April 7, 2010 Tim Murphy Waste Management of Canada Copr. Richmond Landfill Napanee, Ontario K7R 3L1 Dear Mr. Murphy: Subject : Beechwood Road Environmental Centre (BREC) Location : Napanee, Lennox and Addington As part of the process under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture has an interest in the conservation of cultural heritage resources including:

• Archaeological resources; • Built heritage resources; and • Cultural heritage landscapes.

We have reviewed your project and have the following comments: The subject property for this project is considered to have archaeological potential as it meets the following provincial criteria for archaeological potential:

• being within 200 meters of a secondary water source (creek, stream, pond, etc.)

• Also, there are five archaeological sites within a 5km Radius and one of those sites is within less than 500m.

An archaeological assessment by an archaeologist licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act will therefore be required for this project prior to any ground disturbances and/or site alterations. The assessment report must be in compliance with the Ministry of Culture. The licensed archaeologist will forward all completed archaeological assessment reports to the Ministry of Culture for review by an Archaeological Review Officer. In the event that human remains are found, the local police must be notified immediately, followed promptly by notification to this office. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Yours truly,

Alejandro Cifuentes Heritage Planner (416)314-7159 [email protected] cc: Katherine Kirzati, Heritage Planner (East Region), Min. of Tourism and Culture Ted O’Neill, Golder Associates. Linda Cooper, Waste Management of Canada


page 1 of 3WS-46

SGagnon

Typewritten Text

SGagnon

Typewritten Text

SGagnon

Typewritten Text

page 1 of 3

SGagnon

Typewritten Text

Ministry of Tourism and Culture Check Sheet for Environmental Assessments

Page 2 of 3

Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage LandscapesThis check list will help identify potential cultural heritage resources, determine how important they are and indicate whether a cultural heritage impact assessment is needed.

Step 1 – Screening Potential Resources

YES NO

Built heritage resourcesDoes the property contain any built structures, such as:

� � � Residential structures (e.g. house, apartment building, trap line shelter)

� � � Agricultural (e.g. barns, outbuildings, silos, windmills)

� �� Industrial (e.g. factories, complexes)

� � � Engineering works (e.g. bridges, roads, water/sewer systems)

YES NO

Cultural heritage landscapes Does the property contain landscapes such as:

� � � Burial sites and/or cemeteries� � � Parks� � � Quarries or mining operations � � � Canals � � � Other human-made alterations to the natural landscape

Step 2 – Screening for Potential Significance

YES� NO� A property's heritage significance may be identified through the following:

� � 1. Is it designated or adjacent to a property designated under the Ontario Heritage Act?

� � 2. Is it listed on the municipal heritage register or provincial register (e.g. Ontario Heritage Bridge List)?

� � 3. Is it within or adjacent to a Heritage Conservation District? � � 4. Does it have an Ontario Heritage Trust easement or is it adjacent to such a

property?� � 5. Is there a provincial or federal plaque? � � 6. Is it a National Historic Site? � � 7. Does documentation exist to suggest built heritage or cultural heritage

landscape potential? (eg. research studies, heritage impact assessment reports, etc.)

� � 8. Was the municipality contacted regarding potential cultural heritage value? Were any concerns expressed?

� � 9. What are the dates of construction? Are the buildings and/or structures over 40 years old?

Is it within a Canadian Heritage River watershed? � � 10. Is a renowned architect or builder associated with the property?

Note: If you answer "yes" to any of the questions in Step 2, a heritage impact assessment is required.

WS-47

Ministry of Tourism and Culture Check Sheet for Environmental Assessments

Page 3 of 3

Step 3 – Screening for Potential Impacts

YES��

NO�

� Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attribute or feature.

� � Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric or appearance.

� � Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the visibility of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden.

� � Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship.

� � Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built and natural feature.

� � A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces.

� � Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource.

Contents of a Heritage Impact Assessment

As a minimum, the following should be included in a heritage impact assessment:

1. Historical research, site analysis and evaluation 2. Identification of the significance and heritage attributes of the property 3. Description of the proposed development/ site alteration 4. Measurement of impacts 5. Consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods 6. Implementation and monitoring schedules 7. Summary statement and conservation recommendations

For more information, refer to Ministry of Tourism and Culture Info Sheet#5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans as part of the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, which is available on the Ministry's website www.culture.gov.on.ca .

WS-48

Workshop Correspondence with Concerned Citizens of Tyendinaga Township

Page 1 of 1

----- Original Message -----

From: Murphy, Tim - BUR

To:

Sent: Thu Apr 15 08:49:38 2010

Subject: Re: BREC Materials

Hello,

Our final assessment of the alternatives will be contained in our Terms of Reference. If you wish to provide

comment on our preliminary assessment of alternatives, please go to our website at brec.wm.com and in the

Resources section there is an electronic copy of the workbook from our Work Shop on March 25 that has a summary

of the preliminary assessment of alternatives and a place for comments. I hope you will review this and send us

your comments. You can contact me by email with any further questions.

Regards,

Tim

Tim Murphy, MCIP, RPP

Waste Management of Canada Corporation

--------------------------

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----

From:

To: Murphy, Tim - BUR

Sent: Thu Apr 15 07:37:30 2010

Subject: BREC Materials

Tim,

I have reviewed the materials you provided yesterday and noted the

statement that WM had considered six alternatives.

Could you please provide me with a copy of that study?

Thanks for your assistance


WS-49

Concerned Citizens of Tyendinaga Township Letter to the Workshop on Alternatives To, Alternative Methods & Evaluation Criteria

Page 1 of 3

22 April 2010

Response to

Workshop on Alternatives To, Alternative Methods & Evaluation Criteria

Beechwood Road Environmental Centre

dated 25 March 2010

Initial comments:

While I did not attend the event held on 25 March 2010, I was provided a document by

Linda Cooper via e-mail dated 16 April 2010. The document provided had the file name

"WorkshopWorkbook_FINAL.pdf" and was dated 4/15/2010, 11:37 AM.

My overall reaction to this document is that it significantly glosses over several key

issues and dives directly into far less important and secondary discussions. It attempts to

direct participants thoughts past the essential questions and on to those secondary issues

without critical examination of those points at the centre of the debate. This approach

does a disservice to the community and does not enhance the credibility of the early

stages of this process.

Given the history of the existing dump, a proposed expansion, a previous EA (that even

WM representatives now admit was horribly managed and which resulted in the rejection

of the expansion), it seems very important that this process be completely transparent and

above reproach. Early indications do not give me confidence that WM has learned from

this history.

Detailed Comments:

Part 1: Need and the Rationale for Waste Disposal Services in Eastern Ontario

This section does not include all the necessary data to inform participants as to the real

need (or not) for the proposed BREC. For example, the section does not mention the

proposed Durham region's garbage incinerator which, if approved, would accept a

minimum of 140,000 tonnes of waste per year and apparently could be expanded to

accept up to 400,000 tonnes per year. Also, I note the same section neglects to mention

WM's own proposal to establish a nearly identical facility to the BREC in the Ottawa area

to be known as the West Carleton Environmental Centre. This represents, a further

1,000,000 tonnes per year of waste handling capacity with 400,000 tonnes per year of

landfilling included in the plan. These two omissions dramatically misrepresent the

future status of landfill need in Eastern Ontario. What other relevant factors have been

omitted from this section?

The description of the need for landfill capacity in Eastern Ontario implies that ONLY

garbage from those communities listed on page 3 will be accepted at the BREC. Will

WM affirm in a legally binding manner that the service area for the proposed facility will

be strictly limited to this area? If so, this seems to be a much larger proposal than is

WS-50

of 3

needed considering the Durham and WCEC proposals now on the table, particularly

considering the two largest population centres, by far, are represented by these two

communities.

One of the strangest arguments I have read on the need for landfill capacity is that, while

waste diversion is the preferred solution to the "garbage problem," the region still needs

cheap landfilling capacity until waste diversion levels improve. This argument is

illogical. The most certain means for ensuring that waste diversion rates rise is to ensure

the available landfilling capacity is minimized and ultimately eliminated. As the

landfilling capacity decreases, its cost relative to diversion will rise, making diversion the

more economically attractive solution.

Part 2: Alternatives To a New Landfill Footprint

The information provided within this document does not include the analysis WM

performed in order to conclude, for example, why establishing a landfill elsewhere was

deemed less acceptable than BREC. This is a key point since the history of the

Richmond landfill expansion should give anyone concerns that approval of this proposal

can and will be obtained. To fully understand the questions in this section and to answer

them in a meaningful way would require far more detail on the nature of WM's analysis.

Therefore, based on the information currently provided, it is impossible to agree that

alternative 6 is better or worse than any of the others listed.

TABLE 2: ALTERNATIVE METHODS (WAYS) FOR DEVELOPING A NEW

LANDFILL FOOTPRINT

The only appropriate response to this section of the document is that it is overwhelmingly

premature to be discussing details of landfill footprints. Given the inherently unsuitable

nature of the underlying fractured bedrock, it is extremely unlikely any footprint will be

available that will be protective of the vital groundwater resource. The problems with the

existing dump confirm the inherent risks associated with landfilling at this location.

TABLE 3: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES (sic) METHODS FOR

DEVELOPING A NEW LANDFILL FOOTPRINT

Again, it is inappropriate to be engaging the public in details of evaluation criteria for a

landfill footprint until there is some credible evidence that groundwater, soil and air

quality can be protected in such an environment.

It is also inappropriate to use a questionnaire, completed by participants with potentially

little or no technical background, as a basis for designing an evaluation process. This is a

process that must be guided by expert knowledge. Local citizens should be funded to

hire their own independent experts to study the proposal and educate them adequately so

they can participate in a truly meaningful manner. In fact, I understand at least one

citizen's group has requested just this type of funding from WM.

WS-51

of 3

Conclusion:

The BREC proposal suffers from a serious credibility problem due to both the serious

problems of the existing landfill and the history of the previous WM attempt to expand it.

It would seem clear to those of us who were heavily involved in the previous EA that a

far wiser approach for WM to take would be to identify a more suitable location for any

future landfill facility. I am not aware of any overriding reason for continuing to flog this

dead horse. None of the materials provided thus far concerning the BREC proposal have

adequately dealt with this question. Until it is addressed to the satisfaction of fearful

concerned citizens, WM cannot expect this proposal to be welcomed.

From a Member of the Concerned Citizens of the Tyendinaga Township

Napanee, ON

WS-52


June 2010

Appendix C.3 Workshop Materials

WS-53


June 2010

Appendix C.3.1 Workbook

WS-54

Ter

ms o

f Ref

eren

ce fo

r E

nvir

onm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tpri

nt

Bee

chw

ood

Roa

d E

nvir

onm

enta

l Cen

tre

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

& E

valu

atio

n C

rite

ria

Mar

ch 2

5, 2

010

WS-55

BWeerasinghe

Callout

REPLACE WITH THE CORRECT VERSIOn - letter size

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 1

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

Fo

r mor

e in

form

atio

n, p

leas

e se

e ou

r web

site

at h

ttp://

brec

.wm

.com

, cal

l us a

t 613

-354

-106

0 or

em

ail r

harr

is@

wm

.com

or l

coop

erl@

wm

.com

.

AG

END

A

6:00

Reg

iste

r/Sup

per

6:15

Ope

ning

rem

arks

and

ove

rvie

w o

f wor

ksho

p –

Ran

dy H

arri

s Th

e pa

rtici

pant

s will

be

divi

ded

into

thre

e gr

oups

: A, B

or C

. Th

ere

are

thre

e ta

bles

, eac

h w

ith a

faci

litat

or, f

ocus

ing

on

one

of th

ree

topi

cs:

1) A

ltern

ativ

es to

a n

ew la

ndfil

l foo

tprin

t; 2)

Alte

rnat

ive

met

hods

or w

ays o

f dev

elop

ing

a ne

w

land

fill f

ootp

rint,

and

3) c

riter

ia th

at w

ill b

e us

ed in

the

EA to

com

pare

alte

rnat

ives

and

iden

tify

a pr

efer

red

alte

rnat

ive.

Ea

ch p

erso

n w

ill re

ceiv

e a

wor

kboo

k to

com

plet

e to

nigh

t. E

ach

grou

p w

ill g

o th

roug

h th

e w

orkb

ooks

ass

iste

d by

a

faci

litat

or.

You

will

rece

ive

som

e in

form

atio

n an

d th

en b

e as

ked

for y

our i

nput

/opi

nion

. Th

ere

will

be

a sh

ort b

reak

be

twee

n ta

ble

sess

ions

. W

hen

we

reco

nven

e yo

u w

ill ro

tate

to th

e ne

xt g

roup

. E

very

thin

g yo

u ne

ed is

in th

e w

orkb

ook.

If y

ou h

ave

ques

tions

, the

faci

litat

or w

ill h

elp

and

furth

er te

chni

cal r

esou

rces

are

als

o av

aila

ble.

The

re is

sp

ace

avai

labl

e in

the

wor

kboo

k fo

r you

to a

dd a

ny c

omm

ent o

r que

stio

n th

at y

ou w

ant.

T

IME

T

able

1:

Alte

rnat

ives

To

T

able

2:

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

Tab

le 3

: E

valu

atio

n C

rite

ria

6:30

G

roup

A

Gro

up B

G

roup

C

7:25

B

REA

K

BR

EAK

B

REA

K

7:30

G

roup

C

Gro

up A

G

roup

B

8:25

B

REA

K

BR

EAK

B

REA

K

8:30

G

roup

B

Gro

up C

G

roup

A

9:25

Sum

mar

y an

d W

rap

Up

9:30

Adj

ourn

Plea

se te

ll us

abo

ut y

ours

elf.

Und

er th

e Fr

eedo

m o

f Inf

orm

atio

n an

d Pr

otec

tion

of P

riva

cy A

ct a

nd

the

EAA,

unl

ess o

ther

wis

e st

ated

in th

e su

bmis

sion

, any

per

sona

l

info

rmat

ion

such

as n

ame,

add

ress

, tel

epho

ne n

umbe

r and

pro

pert

y

loca

tion

incl

uded

in a

subm

issi

on w

ill b

ecom

e pa

rt o

f the

pub

lic re

cord

s

files

for t

his m

atte

r and

will

be

rele

ased

, if r

eque

sted,

to a

ny p

erso

n.

NA

ME

:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

AD

DR

ESS

: ___

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

POST

AL

CO

DE

___

____

____

____

____

____

__

PHO

NE

:

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_ E

MA

IL:

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

G

RO

UP:

___

_ (

A, B

or C

)

Tell

us w

hat y

ou th

ink!

W

hat d

id y

ou th

ink

abou

t the

wor

ksho

p?

How

cou

ld w

e im

prov

e it?

Did

we

disc

uss t

he ri

ght t

opic

s? U

se th

e ba

ck o

f th

e pa

ge if

you

nee

d m

ore

spac

e.

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

WS-56

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 2

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

Fo

r mor

e in

form

atio

n, p

leas

e se

e ou

r web

site

at h

ttp://

brec

.wm

.com

, cal

l us a

t 613

-354

-106

0 or

em

ail r

harr

is@

wm

.com

or l

coop

erl@

wm

.com

.

TA

BL

E 1

: AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

S T

O A

NE

W L

AN

DFI

LL

Faci

litat

or: M

iche

lle A

rmst

rong

(FoT

enn)

Tech

nica

l Sup

port:

Ted

O’N

eill

(Gol

der)

Part

1: N

eed

and

the

Rat

iona

le fo

r W

aste

Dis

posa

l Ser

vice

s in

Eas

tern

Ont

ario

� Si

nce

the

Min

iste

r of t

he E

nviro

nmen

t rej

ecte

d W

M’s

pre

viou

s EA

, we

have

list

ened

to th

e co

mm

unity

and

con

side

red

the

need

for t

he fu

ture

of t

he N

apan

ee la

ndfil

l and

was

te d

ispo

sal s

ervi

ces

in G

reat

er N

apan

ee a

nd

east

ern

Ont

ario

. W

e ha

ve c

oncl

uded

that

ther

e co

ntin

ues t

o be

an

oppo

rtuni

ty fo

r WM

to m

eet t

hese

nee

ds, i

n a

man

ner c

onsi

sten

t with

the

wis

hes o

f Nap

anee

, its

resi

dent

s and

the

prov

ince

of O

ntar

io.

The

curr

ent l

andf

ill

can

be sa

fely

clo

sed

and

mon

itore

d an

d a

new

inte

grat

ed w

aste

man

agem

ent f

acili

ty e

stab

lishe

d to

take

its p

lace

.

� U

nder

its

curr

ent C

ertif

icat

e of

App

rova

l, th

e N

apan

ee L

andf

ill c

an a

ccep

t a m

axim

um o

f 125

,000

tonn

es o

f was

te p

er y

ear f

or d

ispo

sal.

Up

until

200

4, th

e si

te w

as o

pera

ting

at th

at fi

ll ra

te.

At t

hat t

ime,

WM

mad

e th

e de

cisi

on to

div

ert w

aste

that

had

pre

viou

sly

gone

to th

e N

apan

ee L

andf

ill to

oth

er lo

catio

ns in

ord

er to

ext

end

the

life

of th

e si

te a

s pr

esen

tly a

ppro

ved.

Th

ese

alte

rnat

ives

are

env

ironm

enta

lly a

nd e

cono

mic

ally

less

pr

efer

red

than

hav

ing

disp

osal

cap

acity

at t

he N

apan

ee L

andf

ill.

The

curr

ent a

ppro

ved

land

fill o

n th

e W

M p

rope

rty w

ill re

ach

capa

city

in th

e ne

ar fu

ture

.

� W

M c

ondu

cted

an

anal

ysis

to e

stim

ate

the

need

for l

andf

ill d

ispo

sal.

Sin

ce th

e la

ndfil

l site

is lo

cate

d in

eas

tern

Ont

ario

, the

was

te d

ispo

sal n

eeds

wer

e lim

ited

to e

aste

rn O

ntar

io.

East

ern

Ont

ario

incl

udes

the

follo

win

g ce

nsus

div

isio

ns, a

s def

ined

by

Stat

istic

Can

ada

for 2

006:

Tab

le 1

: E

aste

rn O

ntar

io W

aste

Gen

erat

ion

and

Div

ersi

on (2

006)

Dur

ham

(pop

. 561

,258

) N

orth

umbe

rland

(pop

. 80,

963)

H

alib

urto

n (p

op.1

6,14

7)

Otta

wa

(pop

. 812

,129

)

Has

tings

(pop

. 130

,474

) Pe

terb

orou

gh (p

op. 1

33,0

80)

Kaw

arth

a La

kes (

pop.

74,

561)

Pr

esco

tt an

d R

usse

ll (p

op. 8

0,18

4)

Lana

rk (p

op. 6

3,78

5)

Prin

ce E

dwar

d (p

op. 2

5,49

6)

Leed

s and

Gre

nvill

e (p

op. 9

9,20

6)

Ren

frew

(pop

. 97,

545)

Le

nnox

and

Add

ingt

on (p

op. 4

0,54

2)

Stor

mon

t, D

unda

s and

Gle

ngar

ry (p

op. 1

10,3

99)

Fron

tena

c (p

op.1

43,8

65)

�

Thes

e ce

nsus

div

isio

ns h

ave

a to

tal p

opul

atio

n of

2,4

69,6

34, o

r 20%

of t

he to

tal 2

006

Stat

istic

s Can

ada

popu

latio

n fo

r Ont

ario

. It

is a

ssum

ed th

at th

e am

ount

of w

aste

gen

erat

ion

on a

per

cap

ita b

asis

is c

onsi

sten

t acr

oss t

he

prov

ince

, the

refo

re th

e es

timat

ed 2

006

was

te g

ener

atio

n an

d di

spos

al q

uant

ities

for e

aste

rn O

ntar

io a

re a

s sho

wn

in T

able

2.

Tab

le 2

: E

aste

rn O

ntar

io W

aste

Gen

erat

ion

and

Div

ersi

on (2

006)

T

otal

Was

te G

ener

ated

Was

te D

iver

ted

Res

idua

l Was

te D

ispo

sed

Res

iden

tial

1,04

3,34

0 30

2,29

3 (2

9%)

741,

047

Non

resi

dent

ial

1,52

3,58

7 17

7,07

8 (1

2%)

1,34

6,50

9

Tota

l 2,

566,

927

479,

371

(19%

) 2,

087,

556

WS-57

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 3

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

� B

ased

on

this

info

rmat

ion,

the

2008

nee

d fo

r res

idua

l was

te d

ispo

sal c

apac

ity in

eas

tern

Ont

ario

is c

onse

rvat

ivel

y ta

ken

as 2

.1 m

illio

n to

nnes

per

yea

r, of

whi

ch 1

.3 m

illio

n to

nnes

is fr

om n

on-r

esid

entia

l sou

rces

.

� N

ext w

e lo

oked

at e

xist

ing

disp

osal

cap

acity

in e

aste

rn O

ntar

io.

This

incl

udes

four

priv

atel

y-ow

ned

and

seve

ral m

unic

ipal

ly-o

wne

d la

ndfil

ls in

eas

tern

Ont

ario

.

� B

ased

on

the

avai

labl

e in

form

atio

n, w

e es

timat

ed th

at th

e m

unic

ipal

site

s in

east

ern

Ont

ario

are

cur

rent

ly a

ccep

ting

appr

oxim

atel

y 56

0,00

0 to

nnes

of w

aste

per

yea

r. A

num

ber o

f the

se si

tes w

ill b

e re

achi

ng c

apac

ity a

nd

clos

ing

over

the

next

seve

ral y

ears

and

ther

e ar

e no

maj

or m

unic

ipal

land

fill d

evel

opm

ents

or e

xpan

sion

s pla

nned

. Th

is w

ill p

ut c

ontin

ued

pres

sure

on

the

exis

ting

priv

atel

y-ow

ned

land

fill s

ites i

n ea

ster

n O

ntar

io.

� N

ext w

e es

timat

ed th

e pr

ojec

ted

was

te d

ispo

sal n

eeds

und

er th

ree

scen

ario

s:

o Sc

enar

io 1

- th

e st

atus

quo

, whi

ch w

as b

ased

on

was

te g

ener

atio

n in

crea

sing

at a

n an

nual

incr

ease

of 1

.2%

and

was

te d

iver

sion

rem

aini

ng c

onst

ant a

t the

cur

rent

leve

ls o

f 30%

for r

esid

entia

l and

12%

for I

C &

I;

o Sc

enar

io 2

- in

crea

sed

dive

rsio

n , w

hich

is th

e sa

me

was

te g

ener

atio

n in

crea

se a

long

with

an

incr

ease

in d

iver

sion

rate

s of 1

.5%

per

yea

r unt

il 60

% d

iver

sion

rate

is re

ache

d; a

nd

o Sc

enar

io 3

- ag

gres

sive

div

ersi

on,

whi

ch is

the

sam

e w

aste

gen

erat

ion

incr

ease

alo

ng w

ith a

n in

crea

se in

div

ersi

on ra

tes o

f 2%

per

yea

r up

to 6

0%.

� O

ur a

naly

sis s

how

ed th

at w

ith a

n ag

gres

sive

incr

ease

in w

aste

div

ersi

on (S

cena

rio 3

), th

ere

is a

n ex

pect

ed d

ispo

sal c

apac

ity d

efic

it ra

ngin

g fr

om a

ppro

xim

atel

y 52

0,00

0 to

708

,000

tonn

es p

er y

ear u

ntil

2015

. Th

erea

fter,

the

high

ly a

ggre

ssiv

e w

aste

div

ersi

on a

ssum

ptio

ns, p

artic

ular

ly th

ose

for I

C&

I was

te in

the

City

of O

ttaw

a, le

ad to

a d

ispo

sal d

efic

it w

hich

rang

es fr

om 3

10,0

00 to

510

,000

tonn

es p

er y

ear t

hrou

gh th

e ye

ar 2

028.

� Fi

gure

: Eas

tern

Ont

ario

Res

idua

l Was

te D

ispo

sal N

eeds

vs.

Dis

posa

l Cap

acity

�

This

ana

lysi

s con

clud

es th

at th

ere

is a

n on

goin

g ne

ed fo

r res

idua

l was

te d

ispo

sal s

ervi

ces i

n ea

ster

n O

ntar

io fo

r at l

east

the

next

20

year

s. T

he d

ispo

sal c

apac

ity d

efic

it as

sum

ing

an in

crea

se in

cur

rent

div

ersi

on ra

tes r

ange

s fr

om a

bout

720

,000

to 1

.0 m

illio

n to

nnes

per

yea

r. P

rovi

ding

an

annu

al re

sidu

al w

aste

dis

posa

l cap

acity

in th

e ra

nge

of 4

00,0

00 to

nnes

per

yea

r wou

ld p

rovi

de a

key

ser

vice

to th

e co

mm

uniti

es in

eas

tern

Ont

ario

whi

le

enco

urag

ing

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f hig

her d

iver

sion

rate

s and

alte

rnat

ive

tech

nolo

gies

thro

ugh

the

Bee

chw

ood

Roa

d En

viro

nmen

tal C

entre

for m

anag

ing

the

resi

dual

was

te st

ream

.

� Si

nce

the

Site

is s

trate

gica

lly lo

cate

d in

the

geog

raph

ic c

entre

of E

aste

rn O

ntar

io, i

n te

rms

of b

oth

haul

dis

tanc

es a

nd ro

utes

, and

sin

ce th

e ot

her p

rivat

e di

spos

al s

ites

are

loca

ted

a co

nsid

erab

le d

ista

nce

away

in th

e m

ore

east

ern

parts

of

the

prov

ince

, it i

s cl

ear

that

ther

e is

an

oppo

rtuni

ty f

or e

xten

ding

the

hist

oric

was

te m

anag

emen

t rol

e of

the

WM

’s N

apan

ee S

ite a

s a

sign

ifica

nt c

ompo

nent

in th

e re

sidu

al w

aste

dis

posa

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

serv

icin

g ge

nera

tors

in e

aste

rn O

ntar

io.

� B

ased

on

the

abov

e w

e de

term

ined

that

a n

ew la

ndfil

l foo

tprin

t wou

ld n

eed

to b

e ap

prox

imat

ely

13 m

illio

n cu

bic

met

res i

n si

ze.

0

500,

000

1,00

0,00

0

1,50

0,00

0

2,00

0,00

0

2,50

0,00

0

3,00

0,00

0 2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

mun

icip

al s

ites

Dur

ham

EFW

Wes

t Car

leto

nW

SI N

avan

Lafle

che

Env

Incr

ease

d D

iv.A

ggre

ssive

Div.

Cur

rent

Div.

WS-58

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 4

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

Dis

cuss

ion

and

Com

men

ts o

n N

eed

and

the

Rat

iona

le fo

r W

aste

Dis

posa

l Ser

vice

s in

Eas

tern

Ont

ario

1. D

o yo

u un

ders

tand

the

anal

ysis

that

WM

und

erto

ok to

det

erm

ine

if th

ere

is a

nee

d fo

r was

te d

ispo

sal s

ervi

ces i

n ea

ster

n O

ntar

io?

2.

Are

ther

e ot

her a

sses

smen

t fac

tors

that

shou

ld b

e in

clud

ed in

the

anal

ysis

? W

hat a

re th

ey?

3.

Do

you

gene

rally

agr

ee th

at th

ere

is a

nee

d fo

r was

te d

ispo

sal s

ervi

ces i

n ea

ster

n O

ntar

io e

ven

with

agg

ress

ive

incr

ease

s in

was

te d

iver

sion

eff

orts

? If

no,

ple

ase

shar

e yo

ur re

ason

ing.

WS-59

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 5

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

Part

2: A

ltern

ativ

es T

o a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tpri

nt

� A

fter r

each

ing

the

conc

lusi

on th

at th

ere

the

need

for w

aste

dis

posa

l ser

vice

s in

east

ern

Ont

ario

and

that

we

had

an o

ppor

tuni

ty to

pro

vide

thos

e se

rvic

es, w

e lo

oked

at d

iffer

ent w

ays o

f mee

ting

the

need

. In

EA

term

s thi

s is

know

n as

ass

essi

ng “

Alte

rnat

ives

To”

.

� Fi

rst,

we

iden

tifie

d a

num

ber o

f pot

entia

l alte

rnat

ives

on

how

to p

rovi

de w

aste

dis

posa

l ser

vice

s. T

he a

ltern

ativ

es id

entif

ied

and

cons

ider

ed w

ere:

1.

Do

noth

ing;

2.

Use

cur

rent

land

fill s

ite a

s a tr

ansf

er a

nd p

roce

ssin

g fa

cilit

y an

d ha

ul w

aste

s to

a di

spos

al fa

cilit

y el

sew

here

;

3.

Con

stru

ct a

ther

mal

des

truct

ion

faci

lity

at th

e si

te;

4.

Esta

blis

h a

new

land

fill e

lsew

here

in O

ntar

io;

5.

Clo

se th

e cu

rren

t lan

dfill

and

est

ablis

h a

new

land

fill f

ootp

rint o

n si

te; a

nd,

6.

Clo

se t

he c

urre

nt l

andf

ill a

nd e

stab

lish

a ne

w l

andf

ill f

ootp

rint

for

disp

osal

of

resi

dual

was

tes

on-s

ite a

s pa

rt of

a c

ompr

ehen

sive

was

te m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

tha

t en

com

pass

es a

n fa

cilit

y fo

r in

crea

sed

was

te

dive

rsio

n, e

nerg

y co

nser

vatio

n, a

nd o

ppor

tuni

ties f

or e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t and

com

mun

ity b

enef

its.

Tab

le:

Sum

mar

y of

Scr

eeni

ng to

Iden

tify

Rea

sona

ble

and

Prac

ticab

le A

ltern

ativ

es

Ass

essm

ent F

acto

r A

lt. #

1:

Do

Not

hing

A

lt. #

2: T

rans

fer

Faci

lity

Alt.

#3:

The

rmal

Alt.

#4:

New

Lan

dfill

Els

ewhe

reA

lt. #

5: N

ew L

andf

ill O

n-si

te

Alt.

#6:

New

Lan

dfill

On-

site

– D

iver

sion

a) C

onsi

sten

t with

WM

CC

opp

ortu

nity

? N

o Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

b) T

echn

ical

ly F

easi

ble?

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

c)

Abl

e to

be

appr

oved

? Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

d)

Con

sist

ent w

ith c

ore

busin

ess c

ompe

tenc

ies?

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

e)

Con

siste

nt w

ith st

rate

gy fo

r re

spon

sible

was

te m

anag

emen

t?

No

No

Yes

Y

es

No

Yes

f)

Ena

bles

WM

CC

to c

ontin

ue to

pro

vide

cos

t eff

ectiv

e se

rvic

es?

No

No

No

Yes

Y

es

Yes

g)

Acc

epta

ble

econ

omic

ris

ks a

nd b

enef

its?

N

o N

o N

o N

o N

o Y

es

� A

ltern

ativ

e 6,

the

clos

ure

of th

e cu

rren

t lan

dfill

, the

con

stru

ctio

n an

d op

erat

ion

of a

new

land

fill f

ootp

rint l

ocat

ed n

orth

and

/or n

orth

east

of t

he c

urre

nt la

ndfil

l and

the

esta

blis

hmen

t of s

ever

al a

ctiv

ities

to e

nhan

ce d

iver

sion

of

was

te fr

om th

e la

ndfil

l is

the

pref

erre

d al

tern

ativ

e. I

mpl

emen

tatio

n of

this

alte

rnat

ive

will

pro

vide

add

ition

al w

aste

dis

posa

l cap

acity

for G

reat

er N

apan

ee a

nd e

aste

rn O

ntar

io fo

r an

estim

ated

20

year

s. In

add

ition

, its

lo

catio

n in

the

east

par

t of O

ntar

io is

stra

tegi

c an

d ec

onom

ical

ly fa

vour

able

in te

rms o

f hau

l dis

tanc

es a

nd ro

utes

, sin

ce o

ther

are

a la

ndfil

l site

s are

loca

ted

in th

e O

ttaw

a ar

ea.

� Fi

nally

, WM

dev

elop

ed a

n ov

eral

l con

cept

to m

eet t

he n

eeds

for w

aste

dis

posa

l in

east

ern

Ont

ario

. K

now

n as

the

Bee

chw

ood

Roa

d En

viro

nmen

tal C

entre

(BR

EC),

the

prop

osed

new

faci

lity

com

pris

es se

vera

l act

iviti

es to

en

hanc

e di

vers

ion,

pro

mot

e gr

een

ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n, p

rovi

de e

cono

mic

and

com

mun

ity b

enef

its a

nd p

rovi

de fo

r dis

posa

l of r

esid

ual w

aste

s in

an e

nviro

nmen

tally

safe

man

ner.

WS-60

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 6

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

Dis

cuss

ion

and

Com

men

ts o

n A

ltern

ativ

es T

o a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tpri

nt

1. D

o yo

u un

ders

tand

the

anal

ysis

that

WM

und

erto

ok to

det

erm

ine

alte

rnat

ives

to m

eetin

g th

e ne

ed fo

r was

te d

ispo

sal s

ervi

ces i

n ea

ster

n O

ntar

io?

2.

Are

ther

e ot

her “

alte

rnat

ives

to”

that

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

? W

hat a

re th

ey?

3.

Are

ther

e ot

her e

valu

atio

n cr

iteria

that

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

in th

e as

sess

men

t? W

hat a

re th

ey?

4.

Do

you

agre

e w

ith th

e sc

reen

ing

of a

ltern

ativ

es to

det

erm

ine

if th

ey a

re re

ason

able

and

pra

ctic

al?

5.

Do

you

agre

e w

ith th

e co

nclu

sion

that

alte

rnat

ive

6 is

the

pref

erre

d al

tern

ativ

e?

WS-61

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 7

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

TA

BL

E 2

: AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

ME

TH

OD

S (W

AY

S) F

OR

DE

VE

LO

PIN

G A

NE

W L

AN

DFI

LL

FO

OT

PRIN

T

Faci

litat

or: B

hagy

a W

eera

sing

he (G

olde

r)

Tech

nica

l Res

ourc

e: R

andy

Har

ris (W

aste

Man

agem

ent)

� W

M c

ondu

cted

an

anal

ysis

to d

eter

min

e if

ther

e w

as a

nee

d fo

r pro

vidi

ng w

aste

dis

posa

l ser

vice

s in

east

ern

Ont

ario

and

alte

rnat

ives

to p

rovi

de th

is se

rvic

e. W

e co

nclu

ded

that

ther

e w

as a

nee

d an

d th

at th

e pr

efer

red

way

of m

eetin

g th

is n

eed

was

to c

lose

the

curr

ent l

andf

ill a

nd e

stab

lish

a ne

w la

ndfil

l foo

tprin

t on

the

site

and

pro

vide

enh

ance

d w

aste

div

ersi

on a

ctiv

ities

to m

inim

ize

resi

dual

was

te th

at w

ould

nee

d to

be

land

fille

d.

In E

A te

rms,

this

is k

now

n as

the

pref

erre

d al

tern

ativ

e or

pro

pose

d ‘u

nder

taki

ng’ (

Dis

cuss

ed a

t Tab

le 1

).

� Id

entif

icat

ion

and

eval

uatio

n of

‘Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

’ or d

iffer

ent w

ays t

hat t

he p

roje

ct c

an b

e de

velo

ped

is a

key

ele

men

t of t

he E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t pro

cess

. W

M is

pro

posi

ng to

com

pare

alte

rnat

ive

foot

prin

ts fo

r the

new

land

fill a

t the

EA

stag

e.

At t

he T

OR

stag

e, e

nvel

opes

(or a

reas

) for

pot

entia

l dev

elop

men

t of l

andf

ill fo

otpr

ints

will

be

dete

rmin

ed.

Dur

ing

the

EA, a

reas

onab

le n

umbe

r of

reas

onab

le

alte

rnat

ives

will

be

iden

tifie

d w

ithin

the

deve

lopm

ent e

nvel

opes

.

� To

iden

tify

pote

ntia

l env

elop

es w

e de

term

ined

the

appr

oxim

ate

area

nee

ded

to d

evel

op a

new

land

fill f

ootp

rint w

ith a

n ap

prox

imat

e vo

lum

e of

13

mill

ion

cubi

c m

etre

s, w

hich

wou

ld n

ot b

e hi

gher

than

the

curr

ent

land

fill.

We

dete

rmin

ed th

at w

e ne

eded

app

roxi

mat

ely

50 to

55

ha o

f lan

d.

� N

ext,

we

look

ed a

t the

land

s tha

t we

curr

ently

ow

ned

or le

ased

and

the

cons

train

ts o

n th

ese

land

s (se

e Fi

gure

).

� W

M la

nds i

n th

e so

uth

east

wer

e ex

clud

ed b

ecau

se th

ey w

ere

sepa

rate

d fr

om o

ther

WM

land

s by

priv

atel

y ow

ned

prop

erty

and

wer

e to

o sm

all f

or d

evel

opm

ent o

f the

requ

ired

faci

litie

s.

� N

ext,

we

excl

uded

the

wet

land

con

serv

atio

n ar

eas

on th

e no

rthw

est p

art o

f th

e pr

oper

ty a

s w

ell a

s a

corr

idor

of

land

in th

e m

iddl

e of

our

pro

pert

y th

at is

occ

upie

d by

the

Hyd

ro tr

ansm

issi

on c

orri

dor

and

Mar

ysvi

lle C

reek

.

� Tw

o ar

eas

wer

e id

entif

ied

whi

ch w

ere

too

smal

l for

dev

elop

men

t as

a la

ndfil

l foo

tprin

t, bu

t wer

e su

itabl

e fo

r po

tent

ial d

evel

opm

ent o

f in

fras

truct

ure

such

as

entra

nce,

sca

les,

mai

nten

ance

fac

ilitie

s an

d di

vers

ion

faci

litie

s. O

ne p

arce

l is l

ocat

ed im

med

iate

ly e

ast o

f the

exi

stin

g la

ndfil

l and

the

othe

r is l

ocat

ed a

long

John

son’

s Lin

e Ea

st a

bout

1 k

m n

orth

of B

eech

woo

d R

oad.

� Th

e re

mai

ning

are

a w

as id

entif

ied

as a

n ar

ea w

here

land

fill f

ootp

rint a

ltern

ativ

es c

ould

be

loca

ted.

Oth

er in

fras

truct

ure

to su

ppor

t lan

dfill

ing

and

was

te d

iver

sion

ope

ratio

ns c

ould

be

loca

ted

in th

is e

nvel

ope

as w

ell a

s co

mm

unity

faci

litie

s.

� Th

e en

velo

pe fo

r pot

entia

l dev

elop

men

t can

be

divi

ded

in h

alf (

appr

oxim

atel

y) th

us c

reat

ing

two

area

s for

dev

elop

men

t of l

andf

ill fo

otpr

int a

ltern

ativ

es –

the

wes

tern

env

elop

e an

d ea

ster

n en

velo

pe.

� Th

e 50

-55

ha re

quire

d fo

r lan

dfill

foot

prin

t wou

ld o

ccup

y m

ost o

f the

land

with

in e

ach

enve

lope

.

� It

is a

ntic

ipat

ed th

at tw

o or

mor

e al

tern

ativ

es w

ould

be

iden

tifie

d du

ring

the

EA fo

r bot

h th

e w

este

rn a

nd e

aste

rn e

nvel

opes

.

� Th

e al

tern

ativ

es w

ill c

ompr

ise

diff

eren

t lan

dfill

foot

prin

t dim

ensi

ons (

varia

tion

in h

eigh

t, w

idth

, len

gth,

etc

.), lo

catio

n of

ent

ranc

e, in

fras

truct

ure,

was

te d

iver

sion

faci

litie

s and

com

mun

ity fa

cilit

ies.

� D

urin

g th

e EA

, alte

rnat

ives

will

be

iden

tifie

d, e

valu

ated

and

pre

ferr

ed a

ltern

ativ

e id

entif

ied.

WS-62

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 8

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

WS-63

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 9

-

Was

te M

anag

emen

t of C

anad

a C

orpo

ratio

n

Dis

cuss

ion

and

Com

men

ts o

n A

ltern

ativ

es M

etho

ds fo

r a

New

Lan

dfill

Foo

tpri

nt

1.

Do

you

unde

rsta

nd th

e an

alys

is th

at W

M u

nder

took

to d

eter

min

e ge

nera

l are

as (e

nvel

opes

) for

dev

elop

ing

new

land

fill f

ootp

rint a

ltern

ativ

es a

nd o

ther

com

pone

nts o

f the

BR

EC?

2.

Are

you

in a

gree

men

t with

the

cons

train

t are

as?

If n

o, h

ow w

ould

you

cha

nge

them

?

3.

Are

you

in a

gree

men

t with

the

pote

ntia

l dev

elop

men

t are

as (e

nvel

opes

)? I

f no,

how

wou

ld y

ou c

hang

e th

em?

4.

How

man

y al

tern

ativ

e m

etho

ds sh

ould

be

cons

ider

ed in

the

EA?

Why

?

WS-64

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 1

0 -

W

aste

Man

agem

ent o

f Can

ada

Cor

pora

tion

TA

BL

E 3

: CR

ITE

RIA

FO

R E

VA

LU

AT

ING

AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

S M

ET

HO

DS

FOR

DE

VE

LO

PIN

G A

NE

W L

AN

DFI

LL

FO

OT

PRIN

T

Faci

litat

or: B

lair

Shon

iker

, AEC

OM

Te

chni

cal R

esou

rce:

Tim

Mur

phy

(Was

te M

anag

emen

t)

� W

M c

ondu

cted

an

anal

ysis

to d

eter

min

e if

ther

e w

as a

nee

d fo

r pro

vidi

ng w

aste

dis

posa

l ser

vice

s in

east

ern

Ont

ario

and

alte

rnat

ives

to p

rovi

de th

is se

rvic

e. W

e co

nclu

ded

that

ther

e w

as a

nee

d an

d th

at th

e pr

efer

red

way

of m

eetin

g th

is n

eed

was

to c

lose

the

curr

ent l

andf

ill a

nd e

stab

lish

a ne

w la

ndfil

l foo

tprin

t on

the

site

and

pro

vide

enh

ance

d w

aste

div

ersi

on a

ctiv

ities

to m

inim

ize

resi

dual

was

te th

at w

ould

nee

d to

be

land

fille

d.

(i.e.

, as d

iscu

ssed

at T

able

1)

� W

M id

entif

ied

cons

train

t are

as a

nd a

reas

for p

oten

tial d

evel

opm

ent o

f lan

dfill

foot

prin

t alte

rnat

ives

(dis

cuss

ed a

t Tab

le 2

). D

urin

g th

e EA

, a n

umbe

r of r

easo

nabl

e al

tern

ativ

es w

ill b

e id

entif

ied,

ass

esse

d an

d pr

efer

red

alte

rnat

ive

iden

tifie

d.

� T

o as

sist

in th

e as

sess

men

t and

com

para

tive

eval

uatio

n of

alte

rnat

ives

in th

e EA

, the

env

ironm

ent w

ill b

e st

udie

d to

det

erm

ine

and

docu

men

t exi

stin

g co

nditi

ons.

Pred

icte

d fu

ture

con

ditio

ns fo

r eac

h al

tern

ativ

e m

etho

d w

ill b

e as

sess

ed a

nd c

ompa

rativ

e ev

alua

tion

unde

rtake

n to

det

erm

ine

a pr

efer

red

alte

rnat

ive.

The

adv

anta

ges a

nd d

isad

vant

ages

of e

ach

alte

rnat

ive

will

be

asse

ssed

and

doc

umen

ted.

� Th

e en

viro

nmen

t may

be

divi

ded

into

seve

ral c

ompo

nent

s for

stud

y. W

M h

as id

entif

ied

the

follo

win

g en

viro

nmen

tal c

ompo

nent

s whi

ch w

ill b

e st

udie

d du

ring

the

EA:

o A

tmos

pher

ic E

nviro

nmen

t O

Arc

haeo

logy

and

Cul

tura

l Her

itage

o G

eolo

gy a

nd H

ydro

geol

ogy

o Tr

ansp

orta

tion

o Su

rfac

e W

ater

Res

ourc

es

o La

nd U

se

o Te

rres

trial

Env

ironm

ent

o Ec

onom

ic

o A

quat

ic E

nviro

nmen

t o

Soci

al

o A

borig

inal

� Th

e ra

tiona

le fo

r eac

h co

mpo

nent

of t

he e

nviro

nmen

t is p

rese

nted

in th

e Ta

ble.

� Ea

ch c

ompo

nent

can

then

be

divi

ded

into

sub-

com

pone

nts.

For

exa

mpl

e, a

ir qu

ality

, odo

ur a

nd n

oise

wou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

thre

e su

b-co

mpo

nent

s of t

he a

tmos

pher

ic e

nviro

nmen

t com

pone

nt.

A ra

tiona

le fo

r eac

h su

b-co

mpo

nent

is p

rovi

ded

in th

e Ta

ble

belo

w.

� In

dica

tors

are

the

spec

ific

para

met

ers t

hat w

ill b

e st

udie

d fo

r eac

h en

viro

nmen

tal s

ub-c

ompo

nent

. F

or e

xam

ple,

indi

cato

rs fo

r the

Ter

rest

rial E

cosy

stem

s sub

-com

pone

nt a

re:

o Pr

edic

ted

impa

ct o

n ve

geta

tion

com

mun

ities

due

to p

roje

ct;

o Pr

edic

ted

impa

ct o

n w

ildlif

e ha

bita

t due

to p

roje

ct; a

nd,

WS-65

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 1

1 -

W

aste

Man

agem

ent o

f Can

ada

Cor

pora

tion

o Pr

edic

ted

impa

ct o

f pro

ject

on

vege

tatio

n an

d w

ildlif

e in

clud

ing

rare

, thr

eate

ned

or e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s.

� D

urin

g th

e EA

, bas

elin

e en

viro

nmen

tal d

ata

will

be

colle

cted

for e

ach

alte

rnat

ive,

eac

h en

viro

nmen

tal c

ompo

nent

and

eac

h en

viro

nmen

tal s

ub-c

ompo

nent

. Fu

ture

env

ironm

enta

l con

ditio

ns w

ill b

e pr

edic

ted

and

asse

ssed

and

info

rmat

ion

deve

lope

d to

ena

ble

a de

taile

d co

mpa

rativ

e ev

alua

tion

of a

ltern

ativ

es.

� D

urin

g th

e EA

, eac

h te

chni

cal d

isci

plin

e le

ader

(e.g

., at

mos

pher

ic e

nviro

nmen

t lea

der)

will

com

pare

and

rank

alte

rnat

ives

for e

ach

of th

eir e

nviro

nmen

tal s

ub-c

ompo

nent

s. T

he fo

llow

ing

tabl

e, ta

ken

from

ano

ther

EA

, sh

ows h

ow th

e va

rious

tech

nica

l dis

cipl

ine

lead

ers r

anke

d th

eir r

espe

ctiv

e en

viro

nmen

tal s

ub-c

ompo

nent

s fro

m “

leas

t pre

ferr

ed”

to “

mos

t pre

ferr

ed.”

Env

iron

men

tal C

rite

ria

W

eigh

ting

A

ltern

ativ

es

A

B

C

D

Air

qual

ity

very

impo

rtant

L

ess P

refe

rred

L

ess P

refe

rred

M

ost P

refe

rred

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Odo

ur

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Vis

ual i

mpa

ct

L

ess P

refe

rred

M

ost P

refe

rred

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Noi

se

M

ost P

refe

rred

L

ess P

refe

rred

L

ess P

refe

rred

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Site

D&

O

E

qual

ly P

refe

rred

Aqu

atic

eco

syst

ems

L

ess P

refe

rred

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Gro

undw

ater

qua

lity

impo

rtant

E

qual

ly P

refe

rred

Surf

ace

wat

er q

ualit

y

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Lea

st P

refe

rred

M

ost P

refe

rred

L

ess P

refe

rred

Terr

estri

al e

cosy

stem

s

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Lea

st P

refe

rred

L

ess P

refe

rred

Cul

tura

l & h

erita

ge re

sour

ces

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Rec

reat

iona

l fac

ilitie

s

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Lea

st P

refe

rred

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Arc

haeo

logi

cal r

esou

rces

le

ss im

porta

nt

Equ

ally

Pre

ferr

ed

Effe

cts o

f cos

ts o

n cu

stom

ers

M

ost P

refe

rred

L

ess P

refe

rred

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Con

tinue

d se

rvic

e to

cus

tom

ers

M

ost P

refe

rred

L

ess P

refe

rred

L

east

Pre

ferr

ed

Lea

st P

refe

rred

Econ

omic

ben

efit

to c

omm

unity

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Mos

t Pre

ferr

ed

Les

s Pre

ferr

ed

Lea

st P

refe

rred

WS-66

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 1

2 -

W

aste

Man

agem

ent o

f Can

ada

Cor

pora

tion

� In

the

final

stag

es o

f the

det

aile

d co

mpa

rativ

e ev

alua

tion

of a

ltern

ativ

es it

is n

eces

sary

to c

ombi

ne (a

ggre

gate

) the

indi

vidu

al p

refe

renc

es fo

r eac

h en

viro

nmen

tal s

ub-c

ompo

nent

into

a si

ngle

pre

fere

nce

ratin

g fo

r eac

h al

tern

ativ

e in

ord

er to

rank

the

alte

rnat

ives

and

iden

tify

a pr

efer

red

alte

rnat

ive.

� Th

e ag

greg

atio

n of

pre

fere

nces

use

s a w

eigh

ting

fact

or w

hich

was

pro

vide

d by

the

com

mun

ity.

In th

e ab

ove

exam

ple,

the

com

mun

ity p

lace

d th

e hi

ghes

t im

porta

nce

on a

ir qu

ality

, odo

ur, v

isua

l im

pact

, noi

se, s

ite

D&

A a

nd a

quat

ic e

cosy

stem

s and

the

low

est i

mpo

rtanc

e on

arc

haeo

logy

and

eco

nom

ic b

enef

its.

Thi

s inf

orm

atio

n w

as u

sed

to d

eter

min

e th

e fin

al o

vera

ll pr

efer

ence

s for

the

alte

rnat

ives

.

WS-67

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 1

3 -

W

aste

Man

agem

ent o

f Can

ada

Cor

pora

tion

Dis

cuss

ion

and

Com

men

ts o

n E

valu

atio

n C

rite

ria

for

Det

aile

d C

ompa

rativ

e E

valu

atio

n of

Foo

tpri

nt A

ltern

ativ

es

1.

Do

you

agre

e w

ith th

e en

viro

nmen

tal c

ompo

nent

s tha

t hav

e be

en id

entif

ied?

If n

o, w

hat c

hang

es w

ould

you

sugg

est?

2.

Do

you

agre

e w

ith th

e en

viro

nmen

tal s

ub-c

ompo

nent

s tha

t hav

e be

en id

entif

ied?

If n

o, w

hat c

hang

es w

ould

you

sugg

est?

3.

Do

you

agre

e w

ith th

e ra

tiona

le p

rovi

ded

for t

he e

nviro

nmen

tal c

ompo

nent

s and

sub-

com

pone

nts?

If n

o, w

hat c

hang

es w

ould

you

sugg

est?

4.

Do

you

agre

e w

ith th

e in

dica

tors

pro

vide

d? I

f no,

wha

t cha

nges

or a

dditi

ons w

ould

you

mak

e?

(mak

e ch

ange

s on

the

tabl

e).

5.

Plea

se ra

te th

e cr

iteria

acc

ordi

ng to

the

impo

rtanc

e yo

u pl

ace

on e

ach.

Thi

s inf

orm

atio

n w

ill b

e us

ed in

the

aggr

egat

ion

of p

refe

renc

es fo

r the

alte

rnat

ives

.

(Ple

ase

mak

e ch

ange

s on

the

tabl

e an

d pr

ovid

e th

e ra

tiona

le fo

r the

impo

rtanc

e th

at y

ou se

lect

ed).

WS-68

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 1

4 -

W

aste

Man

agem

ent o

f Can

ada

Cor

pora

tion

Prop

osed

Ass

essm

ent C

riter

ia, R

atio

nale

, Ind

icat

ors &

Crit

eria

Rat

ing

Com

pone

nt

Sub-

com

pone

nt

Rat

iona

le

Indi

cato

rs

Poss

ible

Add

ition

al In

dica

tors

C

rite

ria

Rat

ing

Rat

iona

le

Env

iron

men

tal C

rite

ria

– N

atur

al E

nvir

onm

ent

Atm

osph

eric

En

viro

nmen

t A

ir qu

ality

W

aste

dis

posa

l fac

ilitie

s and

ass

ocia

ted

oper

atio

ns c

an

prod

uce

gase

s con

tain

ing

cont

amin

ants

that

deg

rade

air

qual

ity if

they

are

em

itted

to th

e at

mos

pher

e.

Con

stru

ctio

n an

d op

erat

ion

activ

ities

at a

was

te

disp

osal

faci

lity

can

lead

to in

crea

sed

leve

ls o

f pa

rticu

late

s (du

st) i

n th

e ai

r. C

hang

es in

air

qual

ity

may

aff

ect h

uman

hea

lth.

� M

odel

led

air c

once

ntra

tions

of i

ndic

ator

co

mpo

unds

(org

anic

s, pa

rticu

late

s)

� N

umbe

r of o

ff-s

ite re

cept

ors p

oten

tially

af

fect

ed (r

esid

entia

l pro

perti

es, p

ublic

fa

cilit

ies,

busi

ness

es, a

nd in

stitu

tions

)

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

N

oise

C

onst

ruct

ion

and

oper

atio

n ac

tiviti

es a

t the

faci

lity

may

re

sult

in in

crea

sed

nois

e le

vels

resu

lting

from

the

site

. �

Pred

icte

d si

te-r

elat

ed n

oise

�

Num

ber o

f off

-site

rece

ptor

s pot

entia

lly

affe

cted

(res

iden

tial p

rope

rties

, pub

lic

faci

litie

s, bu

sine

sses

, and

inst

itutio

ns)

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

O

dour

C

ontin

ued

oper

atio

n of

the

was

te d

ispo

sal f

acili

ty m

ay

resu

lt in

cha

nges

in th

e de

gree

and

freq

uenc

y of

odo

urs

from

the

site

� Pr

edic

ted

odou

r em

issi

ons

� N

umbe

r of o

ff-s

ite re

cept

ors p

oten

tially

af

fect

ed (r

esid

entia

l pro

perti

es, p

ublic

fa

cilit

ies,

busi

ness

es, a

nd in

stitu

tions

)

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Geo

logy

and

H

ydro

geol

ogy

Gro

undw

ater

qua

lity

Con

tam

inan

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith w

aste

dis

posa

l site

s hav

e th

e po

tent

ial t

o en

ter t

he g

roun

dwat

er a

nd im

pact

off

-si

te g

roun

dwat

er o

r sur

face

wat

er.

� Pr

edic

ted

effe

cts t

o gr

ound

wat

er q

ualit

y at

pro

perty

bou

ndar

ies a

nd o

ff-s

ite

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Surf

ace

Wat

er

Res

ourc

es

Surf

ace

wat

er q

ualit

y

Con

tam

inan

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith w

aste

dis

posa

l site

s hav

e th

e po

tent

ial t

o se

ep o

r run

off i

nto

surf

ace

wat

er.

�

Pred

icte

d ef

fect

s on

surf

ace

wat

er

qual

ity o

n-si

te a

nd o

ff-s

ite

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Su

rfac

e w

ater

qua

ntity

Th

e co

nstru

ctio

n of

phy

sica

l wor

ks m

ay d

isru

pt n

atur

al

surf

ace

drai

nage

pat

tern

s and

may

alte

r run

off a

nd

peak

flow

s. T

he p

rese

nce

of th

e fa

cilit

y m

ay a

lso

affe

ct b

ase

flow

to su

rfac

e w

ater

.

� C

hang

e in

dra

inag

e ar

eas

� Pr

edic

ted

occu

rren

ce a

nd d

egre

e of

off

-si

te e

ffec

ts

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Terr

estri

al

Envi

ronm

ent

Terr

estri

al e

cosy

stem

s W

aste

dis

posa

l fac

ility

con

stru

ctio

n an

d op

erat

ions

m

ay re

mov

e or

dis

turb

the

func

tioni

ng o

f nat

ural

te

rres

trial

hab

itats

and

veg

etat

ion,

incl

udin

g ra

re,

thre

aten

ed o

r end

ange

red

spec

ies.

� Pr

edic

ted

impa

ct o

n ve

geta

tion

com

mun

ities

due

to p

roje

ct

� Pr

edic

ted

impa

ct o

n w

ildlif

e ha

bita

t due

to

pro

ject

�

Pred

icte

d im

pact

of p

roje

ct o

n ve

geta

tion

and

wild

life

incl

udin

g ra

re,

thre

aten

ed o

r end

ange

red

spec

ies

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

WS-69

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 1

5 -

W

aste

Man

agem

ent o

f Can

ada

Cor

pora

tion

Com

pone

nt

Sub-

com

pone

nt

Rat

iona

le

Indi

cato

rs

Poss

ible

Add

ition

al In

dica

tors

C

rite

ria

Rat

ing

Rat

iona

le

Env

iron

men

tal C

rite

ria

– N

atur

al E

nvir

onm

ent

Aqu

atic

En

viro

nmen

t A

quat

ic e

cosy

stem

s W

aste

dis

posa

l fac

ility

con

stru

ctio

n an

d op

erat

ions

may

rem

ove

or d

istu

rb

the

func

tioni

ng o

f nat

ural

aqu

atic

ha

bita

ts a

nd sp

ecie

s, in

clud

ing

rare

, th

reat

ened

or e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s.

� Pr

edic

ted

chan

ges i

n w

ater

qua

lity

� Pr

edic

ted

impa

ct o

n aq

uatic

hab

itat d

ue to

pro

ject

�

Pred

icte

d im

pact

on

aqua

tic b

iota

due

to p

roje

ct

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Env

iron

men

tal C

rite

ria

– H

uman

Env

iron

men

t

Arc

haeo

logy

an

d C

ultu

ral

Her

itage

Cul

tura

l and

her

itage

re

sour

ces

Cul

tura

l/her

itage

reso

urce

s cou

ld b

e di

spla

ced

by th

e co

nstru

ctio

n of

was

te

disp

osal

faci

lity

com

pone

nts.

The

use

an

d en

joym

ent o

f cul

tura

l res

ourc

es

may

als

o be

dis

turb

ed b

y th

e on

goin

g fa

cilit

y op

erat

ion.

� C

ultu

ral a

nd h

erita

ge re

sour

ces o

n-si

te a

nd in

vic

inity

�

Pred

icte

d im

pact

s to

cultu

ral a

nd h

erita

ge re

sour

ces o

n-si

te a

nd in

vic

inity

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Arc

haeo

logi

cal r

esou

rces

A

rcha

eolo

gica

l res

ourc

es a

re n

on-

rene

wab

le c

ultu

ral r

esou

rces

that

can

be

des

troye

d by

the

cons

truct

ion

and

oper

atio

n of

a w

aste

dis

posa

l fac

ility

.

� Pr

esen

ce o

f arc

haeo

logi

cal r

esou

rces

on-

site

�

Sign

ifica

nce

of o

n-si

te a

rcha

eolo

gy re

sour

ces

pote

ntia

lly d

ispl

aced

/dis

turb

ed

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Tran

spor

tatio

n Ef

fect

s on

airp

ort

oper

atio

ns

Ther

e is

the

pote

ntia

l for

bird

strik

es

for a

ircra

ft us

ing

Tyen

dina

ga M

ohaw

k ai

rpor

t and

the

priv

ate

airf

ield

loca

ted

on L

ots 1

4 an

d 15

Con

cess

ion

III.

� B

ird st

rike

haza

rd to

airc

raft

in L

ocal

Stu

dy A

rea

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Effe

cts f

rom

truc

k tra

nspo

rtatio

n al

ong

acce

ss

road

s

Truc

k tra

ffic

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

land

fill m

ay a

dver

sely

aff

ect r

esid

ents

, bu

sine

ss, i

nstit

utio

ns a

nd m

ovem

ent o

f fa

rm v

ehic

les i

n th

e si

te v

icin

ity.

� Po

tent

ial f

or tr

affic

col

lisio

ns

� D

istu

rban

ce to

traf

fic o

pera

tions

�

Prop

osed

road

impr

ovem

ent r

equi

rem

ents

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Land

Use

Ef

fect

s on

curr

ent a

nd

plan

ned

futu

re la

nd u

ses

The

faci

litie

s may

not

be

fully

co

mpa

tible

with

cer

tain

cur

rent

and

/or

plan

ned

futu

re la

nd u

ses.

Cur

rent

land

us

es (e

.g.,

agric

ultu

re) m

ay b

e di

spla

ced

by fa

cilit

y de

velo

pmen

t. W

aste

dis

posa

l fac

ilitie

s can

pot

entia

lly

affe

ct th

e us

e an

d en

joym

ent o

f re

crea

tiona

l res

ourc

es in

the

vici

nity

of

the

site

.

� C

urre

nt la

nd u

se

� Pl

anne

d fu

ture

land

use

�

Type

(s) a

nd p

roxi

mity

of o

ff-s

ite re

crea

tiona

l res

ourc

es

with

in 5

00 m

of l

andf

ill fo

otpr

int p

oten

tially

aff

ecte

d �

Type

(s) a

nd p

roxi

mity

of o

ff-s

ite se

nsiti

ve la

nd u

ses

(i.e.

dw

ellin

gs, c

hurc

hes,

cem

eter

ies,

park

s) w

ithin

500

m

of l

andf

ill fo

otpr

int p

oten

tially

aff

ecte

d

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Dis

plac

emen

t of

agric

ultu

ral l

and

Agr

icul

tura

l lan

d w

ill b

e di

spla

ced

by

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f the

faci

lity

if th

e fa

cilit

y is

loca

ted

away

from

the

land

s cu

rren

tly d

esig

nate

d to

acc

omm

odat

e w

aste

man

agem

ent f

acili

ties.

� C

urre

nt la

nd u

se

� Pr

edic

ted

impa

cts o

n su

rrou

ndin

g ag

ricul

tura

l op

erat

ions

�

Type

(s) a

nd p

roxi

mity

agr

icul

tura

l ope

ratio

ns (i

.e.

orga

nic,

cas

h cr

op, l

ives

tock

)

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

WS-70

Wor

ksho

p on

Alte

rnat

ives

To,

Alte

rnat

ive

Met

hods

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a M

arch

25,

201

0

- 1

6 -

W

aste

Man

agem

ent o

f Can

ada

Cor

pora

tion

C

ompo

nent

Su

b-co

mpo

nent

R

atio

nale

In

dica

tors

Po

ssib

le A

dditi

onal

Indi

cato

rs

Cri

teri

a R

atin

g R

atio

nale

Env

iron

men

tal C

rite

ria

– H

uman

Env

iron

men

t

Econ

omic

Effe

cts o

n th

e co

st o

f se

rvic

es to

cus

tom

ers

The

cost

s of c

ontin

ued

oper

atio

n of

a w

aste

dis

posa

l fa

cilit

y w

ill a

ffec

t the

pric

e of

tipp

ing

fees

, su

bseq

uent

ly a

ffec

ting

the

cost

of s

ervi

ce to

cus

tom

ers.

Th

e gr

eate

r the

air

spac

e ac

hiev

ed fo

r a lo

wer

cap

ital

cost

will

ena

ble

a lo

wer

cos

t of s

ervi

ces t

o be

pro

vide

d.

� R

atio

of a

ir sp

ace

achi

eved

to v

olum

e of

so

il to

be

exca

vate

d an

d ar

ea o

f cel

l bas

e an

d le

acha

te c

olle

ctio

n sy

stem

to b

e co

nstru

cted

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Con

tinue

d se

rvic

e to

cu

stom

ers

The

Nap

anee

land

fill s

ite w

ill p

rovi

de a

n im

porta

nt a

nd

affo

rdab

le se

rvic

e to

its u

sers

, par

ticul

arly

in th

e ea

st

end

of O

ttaw

a.

� To

tal o

ptim

ized

site

cap

acity

and

site

lif

e

Ver

y Im

port

ant

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

N

ot Im

port

ant

Econ

omic

ben

efit

to lo

cal

mun

icip

ality

Th

e co

ntin

ued

use

of th

e fa

cilit

y w

ill p

rovi

de e

cono

mic

be

nefit

s to

the

loca

l com

mun

ity in

the

form

of n

ew

empl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties i

n bo

th th

e co

nstru

ctio

n an

d da

y-to

-day

ope

ratio

n. T

his a

lso

has t

he p

oten

tial f

or

incr

ease

d em

ploy

men

t opp

ortu

nitie

s in

loca

l firm

s su

pply

ing

prod

ucts

or s

ervi

ces d

irect

ly, o

r as s

econ

dary

su

pplie

rs.

� Em

ploy

men

t at s

ite (n

umbe

r and

du

ratio

n)

� O

ppor

tuni

ties t

o pr

ovid

e pr

oduc

ts o

r se

rvic

es

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

N

ot Im

port

ant

Soci

al

Vis

ual i

mpa

ct o

f the

faci

lity

The

cont

ours

of a

was

te d

ispo

sal f

acili

ty c

an a

ffec

t the

vi

sual

app

eal o

f a la

ndsc

ape.

�

Pred

icte

d ch

ange

s in

land

scap

es a

nd

view

s

Ver

y Im

port

ant

Impo

rtan

t

Les

s Im

port

ant

N

ot Im

port

ant

Rec

reat

iona

l Fac

ilitie

s W

aste

dis

posa

l fac

ilitie

s can

pot

entia

lly a

ffec

t the

use

an

d en

joym

ent o

f rec

reat

iona

l res

ourc

es in

the

vici

nity

of

the

site

� Ty

pe(s

) and

pro

xim

ity o

f off

-site

re

crea

tiona

l res

ourc

es w

ithin

500

m o

f la

ndfil

l foo

tprin

t pot

entia

lly a

ffec

ted

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Abo

rigin

al

Pote

ntia

l eff

ects

on

abor

igin

al c

omm

uniti

es

The

faci

lity

cons

truct

ion

and

oper

atio

ns m

ay a

dver

sely

af

fect

loca

l abo

rigin

al c

omm

uniti

es.

� Po

tent

ial e

ffec

ts o

n us

e of

land

s for

tra

ditio

nal p

urpo

ses

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

Tech

nica

l Cri

teri

a

Site

Des

ign

and

Ope

ratio

ns

Site

des

ign

and

oper

atio

ns

char

acte

ristic

s Th

e ch

arac

teris

tics o

f the

exi

stin

g an

d pr

opos

ed si

te

desi

gn a

nd e

ngin

eere

d sy

stem

requ

irem

ents

will

aff

ect

site

act

iviti

es a

nd o

pera

tiona

l and

mai

nten

ance

re

quire

men

ts.

� C

ompl

exity

of s

ite in

fras

truct

ure

� O

pera

tiona

l fle

xibi

lity

� In

tera

ctio

n w

ith e

xist

ing

site

in

fras

truct

ure

� So

il m

anag

emen

t req

uire

men

ts

V

ery

Impo

rtan

t

Im

port

ant

L

ess I

mpo

rtan

t

Not

Impo

rtan

t

WS-71


June 2010

Appendix C.3.2 Handouts - Attendance Sheet - Copies of OH#1 Display Boards (see Appendix A.3.1) - Launch packages (see Appendix A.2.3) - Blank copies of the Workbook (see Appendix C.3.1)

WS-72

WM

CC

Wor

ksho

p #1

– M

arch

25,

201

0

AT

TE

ND

AN

CE

LIS

T

1

Nam

e (L

ast,

Firs

t) A

ddre

ss

Post

al

Cod

e Ph

one

Num

ber

Em

ail

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

WS-73

cover sheets may18 9am 1 - waste management

Documents