humberstone_review

Ministry Review of the
Humberstone Landfill
Expansion Environmental
Assessment
ontario.ca/environmentalassessments

Ministry Review of the
Humberstone Landfill Expansion
Environmental Assessment
September 2015
Environmental Assessment Act
R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)
PIBS 9880e
© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2015
For more information on this report, please contact the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s
Public Information Centre
Toll free 1-800-565-4923
In the GTA 416-325-4000
TTY 1-800-515-2759
Email picemail.moe@ontario.ca
Website www.ontario.ca/environment

Need more information?
Public Record Locations
The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during
normal business hours at the following ministry office:
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st
Floor
Toronto, Ontario
Voice: 416-314-8001/1-800-461-6290
Fax: 416-314-8452
The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following
locations:
Regional Municipality of Niagara
Clerk’s Department
2201 St. David’s Road
Thorold, Ontario
L2V 4T7
Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change
Niagara District Office
203 St. Paul Street, Floor 9
St. Catharines, Ontario
L2R 7R4
City of Welland
Clerk’s Department
60 Main Street East
Welland, Ontario
L3B 6J1
Welland Public Library
50 The Boardwalk
Welland, Ontario
L3B 6J1
This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets
out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the
completion of the Review was August 28, 2015. This paragraph and the giving of
the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the
Environmental Assessment Act.
The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and takes the
comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities
into consideration.
Ce document est disponible en français.

Humberstone Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Ministry Review
September 2015
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................1
1. Environmental Assessment Process .....................................................2
1.1 Terms of Reference.........................................................................2
1.2 Environmental Assessment.............................................................3
1.3 Ministry Review ...............................................................................4
2. The Proposed Undertaking .....................................................................6
2.1 Background .....................................................................................6
2.2 Description of the Preferred Undertaking ........................................8
3. Results of the Ministry Review .............................................................13
3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA...................................................13
3.1.1 Ministry Analysis................................................................13
3.1.2 Consultation.......................................................................13
3.1.3 Conclusion.........................................................................17
3.2 EA Process....................................................................................17
3.2.1 Key Issues.........................................................................17
3.2.2 Conclusion.........................................................................21
3.3 Proposed Undertaking...................................................................21
3.3.1 Key Issues.........................................................................22
3.3.2 Conclusion.........................................................................22
4. Summary of the Ministry Review ..........................................................27
5. What Happens Now? .............................................................................28
5.1 Additional Approvals Required ......................................................29
5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking .......................29
List of Appendices
Appendix A Environmental Assessment Act Requirements
Appendix B Submissions Received During the Initial Comment Period
List of Figures
Figure 1 On-Site and Site Vicinity Study Areas
Figure 2 Preferred Undertaking
Figure 3 Cross Sections of Preferred Undertaking
Figure 4 Site Map and Surrounding Area
List of Tables
Table 1 Government Review Team Comment Summary Table
Table 2 Public Comment Summary Table
Table 3 Aboriginal Communities Comment Summary Table

September 2015
1
Executive Summary
Who Niagara Region (Region)
What Ministry Review (Review) of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which
includes:
• A vertical expansion of the existing landfill site with
a uniform increase of 6 m along the eastern and
central sections of the site, and a peak increase of
16 m formed in the western section. No change is
proposed to the footprint of the fill or site area.
• The Region is seeking approval for an increase of
2.4 million m3
of capacity (25 years of additional
capacity) for solid non-hazardous waste, post-
diversion, including final cover.
When EA Submitted: June 5, 2015.
Ministry Review comment period: September 11 –
October 16, 2015.
Where The landfill is located at 700 Humberstone Road in the
City of Welland, Niagara Region. The landfill site has a
37.8 ha fill area on a 62.1 ha site, with 2.2 million m3
of
capacity.
Why The Region has estimated that the landfill will exceed its
current approved capacity by 2016. It is estimated that the
Region needs an additional 2.4 million m3
to continue
servicing southern Niagara over the next 25 years.
Conclusions The Review concludes the EA was prepared in
accordance with the approved Terms of Reference (ToR)
and contained sufficient information to assess the
potential environmental effects of the proposed
undertaking.

September 2015
2
1. Environmental Assessment Process
Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process
designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-
making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In
Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets
out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as
well as the ministry’s evaluation process. For those
proponents and undertakings subject the EAA, approval
under the EAA is required before the undertaking can
proceed.
Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on
the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to
ensure the protection, conservation and wise
management of the environment. An EA determines, on
the basis of the environmental effects, if an undertaking
should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can
be managed.
EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider
alternative ways of addressing the problem or
opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the
alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the
alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to
avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental
effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and
consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public
and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine
the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is
required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and
the EAA approval.
1.1 Terms of Reference
Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment and
Climate Change (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and
EA Process
ToR Approval
↓
EA Preparation
↓
EA Submission
↓
EA Comment Period
↓
Ministry Review
↓
Review Comment
Period
↓
Minister’s Decision

September 2015
3
submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change (ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or
framework for how the EA will be prepared.
On November 7, 2013, the Minister approved Niagara Region’s (Region/the
proponent) ToR for the proposed Humberstone Landfill Expansion. The ToR
established the rationale for expanding the existing landfill. The ToR stated that
the EA would be prepared in accordance with Section 6(2)(c) and 6.1(3) of the
EAA, thus enabling the Region to ‘focus’ the EA and alternatives to address
specifically vertical expansion of the landfill. The ToR set out how the Region
would assess alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking,
assess environmental effects and consult with the public, government agencies
and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA. The ToR also
outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.
1.2 Environmental Assessment
Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the
second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared
in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the
proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to
the ministry for review and approval.
On June 5, 2015, the Region submitted its EA titled Proposed Expansion of the
Humberstone Landfill. The Region is seeking approval for 2.4 million m3
of
additional airspace capacity for residual (post-diversion) solid non-hazardous
(domestic, commercial and industrial) waste in the Region of Niagara. This would
provide approximately 25 years of additional capacity. This additional capacity is
proposed through a vertical expansion of the landfill, with no proposed changes
to the landfill footprint. The EA comment period ended on July 24, 2015.
The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The
GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure
the information and conclusions of the EA were valid based on their agencies’
mandates. The EA was also circulated to interested members of the public and
potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities for an opportunity to
review and comment on the EA. All comments received by the ministry are
considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the undertaking.

September 2015
4
1.3 Ministry Review
The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as
the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA.
The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in
accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the
EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to
make a decision about the proposed undertaking.
The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the
recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking.
Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the
proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the
proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and
analysis of the public, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA
and the proposed undertaking.
The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change considers the conclusion of
the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision
making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the
five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the
approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal
communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed
undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone
can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition,
anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the
EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there
are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed.
Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The
Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.
A Notice of Completion of the Review has been published in the Welland Tribune
in English and the Hamilton Le Regional in French indicating that this Review has
been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from
September 11, 2015 to October 16, 2015. Copies of the Review have been
placed in five public record locations, and copies have been distributed to the

September 2015
5
GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities.
Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment
period also received copies of the Review.

September 2015
6
2. The Proposed Undertaking
2.1 Background
Landfill Site and Vicinity
The Region owns and operates the Humberstone Landfill located at 700
Humberstone Road in the City of Welland, Ontario (Figure 4). Disposal of waste
began at the landfill in the 1940s and has continued since. The site accepts
domestic, commercial and non-hazardous solid industrial waste from primarily
four municipalities: Township of Wainfleet, City of Welland, City of Port Colborne,
and Town of Fort Erie, though the landfill is available to other parts of the Niagara
Region under certain circumstances. The fill area occupies 37.8 hectares of a
62.1 hectare site (Figure 1). Currently licenced under Environmental Compliance
Approval (ECA) A120401, the landfill is approved to accept 700 tonnes of waste
per day to a capacity of 2.2 million m3
, with an estimated site life to 2016.
The major site components at the landfill include: the licenced waste disposal
area, a perimeter leachate collection system, a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
containment cell, four stormwater management ponds and a landfill gas
collection and control system. Construction of the landfill gas collection and
control system, which was approved by then Ministry of the Environment, began
in 2013 and will be completed over several phases. The collected leachate is
treated at the Welland Wastewater Treatment Plant, 5.5 kilometres away, via a
direct connection to the municipal sewer. The current site operations include an
annual monitoring program for groundwater, surface water and leachate.
The surrounding land uses include a provincially significant wetland (PSW) and a
city park to the north, a surface drainage outlet to the east, CN Rail lands and
PSW to the southwest and the township boundary to the west. Land uses in the
site-vicinity include a mix of residential, light industrial, and environmental
protection lands. The lands directly west of the site are zoned agricultural.
Groundwater flow direction in the site-vicinity study area is downward through un-
weathered clay towards the bedrock aquifer. Vertical groundwater movement
from the base of the waste through the clay towards the bedrock aquifer is
estimated to be slow at approximately 10-9
metres per second (i.e. millimetres per

September 2015
7
year). Groundwater flow in the bedrock is interpreted to be in an easterly
direction at a slow pace. The upper weathered zone of the clay is fractured and is
the principal zone for horizontal groundwater movement.
The main surface water feature in the area is the Welland River located about
600 metres to the north of the Humberstone Landfill. Drainage from the site
enters the Welland River via the Brown Tap Drain. The landfill site is located
within the ministry’s Niagara Peninsula Source Water Protection Region, five
kilometres from the Welland Water Treatment Plant.
The Niagara Central Airport is located four kilometres to the west of the site, and
provides services to Niagara Region. The Region has determined that the
expansion and continued operation of the site will not pose a risk to the airport.
Existing vegetation acts to screen the waste mound from the surrounding sites.
In 2012, a new berm was constructed north of the Humberstone Landfill to
provide further screening of the landfill from St. George Park.
Regional Waste Management Context
The Region uses three landfills to dispose of residual wastes: Niagara Road 12
Landfill in the Township of West Lincoln, which services the northwestern part of
the Region; the Niagara Waste Systems Ltd. Landfill in the City of Niagara Falls,
which services the northeastern part of the Region; and the Humberstone
Landfill, which services the southern portion of the Region. This system of three
landfills reduces transportation of waste throughout the Region and provides an
efficient service level and cost-effective local waste management solution.
Waste Diversion
In addition to operating its waste disposal facilities, the Region is committed to
waste diversion. The Region is currently achieving a residential diversion rate of
51.8%, while the Region’s target is 65% residential waste diversion by 2020. To
help achieve this target, the Region runs a number of waste diversion strategies,
including public education; subsidized home composters; collection of
electronics, batteries, tires, scrap metals, clothing and construction/demolition
material; green cart organics collection; and blue and grey boxes.

September 2015
8
In addition to these programs, the Region is continually investigating
opportunities to divert material from landfills, including point source reduction
programs; additional recycling depots; and ongoing pilot projects for increasing
diversion of recyclables from residential users.
2.2 Description of the Preferred Undertaking
The Region identified three alternative methods of expanding the landfill and five
alternative methods of treating the leachate generated.
The preferred method of expanding the fill area would result in a peak towards
the western edge of the site (Figure 2). It includes a uniform increase of 6 metres
to the height of the waste mound in the central and eastern portions of the landfill
and a 16 metre height increase in the western portion of the landfill. The
expansion is proposed to be undertaken in eight phases, with each phase taking
approximately 3-5 years.
The preferred method of treating the leachate is to use the existing Welland
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) via a 5.5km municipal sewer connection.
The plant currently receives an average wastewater flow of 40,600 m3
per day or
74% of rated capacity. The estimated current and future leachate volume
generated by the Humberstone Landfill of 160,000 m3
per year represents 1.1%
of the total yearly flow currently processed by the WWTP.
The expansion would require the Region to plant trees on top of the constructed
berm in order to mitigate the visual impact of the higher western mound in St.
George Park. The Region would also need to modify the currently approved
landfill gas collection and control system and two of the stormwater management
ponds to accommodate the expansion. All other site infrastructure would remain
unchanged.
If EAA approval is granted, the landfill expansion will be completed in accordance
with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of
approval; and will include the details outlined above. In addition, the Region must
still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

September 2015
9
Figure 1:
On-Site and Site Vicinity Study Areas

September 2015
10
Figure 2:
Preferred Undertaking

September 2015
11
Figure 3:
Cross-Sections of Preferred Undertaking

September 2015
12
Figure 4:
Site Map and Surrounding Area

September 2015
13
3. Results of the Ministry
Review
The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The
Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor
present the information found in the EA. For
information on the decision making process, refer to
the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation
outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates
how the proponent has selected the preferred
undertaking and made the final decision.
3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA
3.1.1 Ministry Analysis
The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with
the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the
requirements of the ToR have been met. The
ministry has concluded the EA followed the
framework outlined in the ToR, and has addressed
the commitments made in the ToR. In addition, the
EA has satisfied the requirements of the
Environmental Assessment Act.
Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies
how the ToR requirements have been addressed in
the EA.
3.1.2 Consultation
One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-
submission consultation completed during the
preparation of the EA. This consultation is the
responsibility of the proponent and must be taken
prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance
with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR. Once
The purpose of the Ministry
Review is to determine
whether:
• The EA has met the
requirements of the ToR
and the EAA.
• There are any
outstanding issues with
the EA.
• The proposed
undertaking has technical
merit.
Must Haves in the EA:
• The EA must be prepared
in accordance with the
approved ToR.
• EA must include all the
basic EAA information
requirements.
• EA demonstrates where
all the additional
commitments in the ToR
were met, including
studies and the
consultation process.
Section 5.1 of the EAA
states:
“When preparing proposed
terms of reference and an
environmental assessment,
the proponent shall consult
with such persons as may
be interested.”

September 2015
14
the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs
during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and potentially affected and
interested Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the
EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the
ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. The
Region may also continue consulting with stakeholders after submission of the
EA in order to respond to any additional questions or issues.
A summary of the consultation that was conducted during the EA process is
provided in the remainder of Section 3.1.2 below.
All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were
forwarded to the Region for a response. A summary of key issues raised can be
found in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.1 of this Review. Summaries of the all comments
received along with the Region’s responses are included in Tables 1 to 3. Copies
of the submissions are also available in Appendix B.
The ministry is satisfied with the level of consultation undertaken by the Region
and the documentation of consultation provided in the EA report. The EA
adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of
the various consultation activities. The Region’s consultation activities are
described in Section 3 of the EA report and in Volume 2 (Record of Consultation)
of the EA.
Government Review Team
During the preparation of the EA, the Region sought input from members of the
GRT including provincial ministries, federal departments and municipal agencies.
This outreach was to identify: those regulatory and government agencies that
may have a potential interest in or mandate related to the proposed undertaking;
any approvals or permit requirements administered under their respective
jurisdictional authorities; and any potential concerns about the proposed
undertaking.
The Region consulted the GRT through a variety of means including telephone
calls, written and electronic correspondence and formal meetings. A summary of
the consultation process carried out during the preparation of the EA with
members of the GRT, the comments received and the Region’s responses to
them can be found in Section 3 and Volume 2 of the EA.

September 2015
15
A draft version of the EA was made available to the GRT for review during a
five-week comment period between January 29 and March 5, 2015. Following
formal submission of the EA to the ministry, GRT members from various
agencies were provided copies of the EA for their review during the seven-week
comment period, which began June 19, 2015 and ended July 24, 2015. All
comments received were forwarded by the ministry to the Region for a response.
Public Consultation
Members of the public, which includes the general public, communities, local
organizations, interest groups and property owners, were provided with several
opportunities to participate and provide input during the preparation of the EA.
The Region established and maintained a contact list and carried out
consultation in a variety of ways, including holding four public open houses;
establishing an EA Advisory Group (EAAG) and holding four EAAG meetings;
direct written correspondence; newspaper notifications of EA milestones and
consultation opportunities; hosting site tours; and posting information and
materials to a project website.
The objective of public consultation was to inform and seek input from interested
members of the public on the EA process and the proposed undertaking. A
detailed summary of the public consultation process carried out during the
preparation of the EA, the comments received and the Region’s responses to
them can be found in Section 3 and Volume 2 of the EA.
A draft version of the EA was made available to the public for review and
comments during a five-week comment period between January 29 and March 5,
2015. Members of the public were also provided with an opportunity to review
and comment on the EA during the seven-week inspection period that
commenced with the formal submission of the EA on June 19, 2015. The
inspection period was coordinated by the ministry and members of the public
were asked to provide any comments directly to the ministry for consideration.
During the formal comment period on the EA, comments from three stakeholders
or members of the public were received by the ministry. Refer to Section 3.3.1 of
this Review for the key issues raised. As with the comments received from the
GRT, the ministry forwarded all public comments to the Region for a response.

September 2015
16
Aboriginal Community Consultation
In addition to public consultation, the EAA
requires that Aboriginal communities within
the surrounding area of the proposed
undertaking be consulted with during the pre-
submission period. Aboriginal communities
have special land and treaty rights that need
to be considered.
In addition to public consultation, the EAA
requires that Aboriginal communities within
the surrounding area of the proposed
undertaking be consulted with during the pre-
submission period. Aboriginal communities
have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.
During preparation of the EA, the Region sought advice from the ministry to
identify potentially affected Aboriginal communities. These communities were
provided opportunities to participate throughout the EA process and were
consulted and engaged to different degrees depending on the province’s
preliminary assessment of the extent to which the project could potentially impact
their asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights.
The Region focused its consultation efforts on those potentially affected and
interested communities and organizations:
• Six Nations of the Grand River (Elected Council)
• Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (represented by the
Haudenosaunee Development Institute)
• Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation
• Niagara Region Métis Council
• Métis Nation of Ontario
These Aboriginal communities and organizations were consulted throughout the
preparation of the EA, beginning at ToR preparation, through a number of
different methods. The Region consulted through direct written correspondence
Aboriginal rights stem from
practices, customs or traditions
which are integral to the distinctive
culture of the Aboriginal community
claiming the right.
Treaty rights stem from the signing
of treaties by Aboriginal peoples
with the Crown.
Aboriginal rights and treaty rights
are protected by section 35 of the
Constitution Act, 1982.

September 2015
17
to inform of consultation opportunities, public open houses and key milestones
during the EA process, meetings and site tours with interested communities. A
summary of the Aboriginal consultation process can be found in Section 3 of the
EA, with more details in Volume 2 (Record of Consultation).
During the seven-week inspection period on the final EA, Six Nations of the
Grand River provided a letter to the ministry indicating that they did not have any
comments on the proposed undertaking. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation
indicated to the ministry by phone that they did not have any comments. The
Haudenosaunee Development Institute provided a letter to the ministry indicating
the project will negatively impact on treaty rights and the duty to consult
requirements have not been met. A summary of the comments received from
Aboriginal communities are in Section 3.3.1 of this Review, with more details in
Table 3.
Ministry Conclusions on the Consultation Program
Overall, the ministry is satisfied that the Region appropriately carried out the
consultation plan that was outlined in the approved ToR. Further, the ministry
believes that the Region provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, the public,
interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the
preparation of the EA.
The EA documents the consultation methods that were undertaken by the
Region to engage government reviewers, Aboriginal communities and members
of the public during the development of the EA. The EA discusses the concerns
raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed if the EA is approved.
3.1.3 Conclusion
The ministry is satisfied that the consultation carried out meets the requirements
of the EAA and is in accordance with the approved ToR.
3.2 EA Process
EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify a problem or
opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity,
evaluate the potential effects of those alternatives against select criteria and then

September 2015
18
select a preferred alternative. In general, the Region followed a logical and
transparent decision making process that was outlined in the EA. Below is a
summary of the Region’s EA methodology, including the study areas used and
the methodology for assessing alternatives and environmental effects. Refer to
Appendix A of this Review for the ministry’s analysis of how the EA met the
requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.
The evaluation of alternatives in the EA consisted of:
• Describing the problem or purpose;
• Describing and providing a rationale for the alternative methods identified
in the approved ToR which included alternative vertical landfill expansion
configurations and alternative leachate treatment options;
• Describing the environment potentially affected by each alternative within
the study area described in the EA;
• Predicting and evaluating environmental effects for each alternative taking
into account mitigation measures (net effects);
• Conducting a comparative evaluation, including taking into account the
relative importance of the evaluation criteria which was established with
input from the public. The comparative analysis discussed advantages
and disadvantages. A reasoned argument or trade off method was used to
identify a preferred alternative;
• Identifying and providing a rationale for selecting the preferred
undertaking.
Focused EA
In the ToR, the Region identified that it would undertake a focused EA to
evaluate vertical expansion of the landfill and would not consider horizontal
expansion nor alternatives to expansion, such as creating a new landfill or
alternative disposal technology. The ToR established the rationale for focusing
the EA by summarizing previous studies between 1995 and 2007 that support
the preferred alternative for vertical expansion. The ToR also established the
rationale for not conducting archaeological screening, traffic studies or bird
hazard assessment during the EA due to the focus on vertical expansion and the
limited operational changes proposed as part of the project.

September 2015
19
The EA assessed alternative methods for vertically expanding the landfill and
alternative methods for leachate treatment, per the approved ToR.
Study Area
The study areas for the EA process comprised the on-site study area and site-
vicinity study area extending to a 500 metre buffer zone surrounding the site
boundary (Figure 1). The site-vicinity study area was modified or extended for
individual environmental components as appropriate, for example the surface
water study area was extended to characterize existing conditions in the context
of the watershed level.
The ministry’s Source Protection Programs Branch indicated at the ToR stage
that there are no concerns related to source water protection since the Intake
Protection Zone for the Welland Water Treatment Plant is five kilometres from
the existing landfill, and the vulnerability scoring for the Intake Protection Zone is
low with no significant threats identified.
Assessment of Alternative Methods and Environmental Effects
The Region identified seven environmental components to be assessed as part
of the EA: atmosphere; geology and hydrogeology; surface water; biology; land
use; cultural heritage resources; and socio-economic components. These
components were used to assess the impacts of each alternative method, and to
develop appropriate mitigation measures.
Assessment of Alternative Methods
The methodology for assessment of alternative methods for expansion of the fill
area and alternative methods for treatment of the leachate generated was
conducted in two parts. The first part identified the alternative methods of
expanding the landfill; characterized the existing environmental conditions; and
identified the potential environmental effects from each alternative method.
The second part of the assessment process was used to select the preferred
alternative method by determining the mitigation measures and net effects of
each proposal; and comparing the alternative methods to determine a preferred

September 2015
20
option for landfill expansion. This was followed by evaluating and identifying
alternative methods for leachate treatment for the preferred expansion method,
including the consideration of potential effects and mitigation measures. The
Region then described the preferred method of landfill expansion (higher mound
in the west) and leachate treatment (continued conveyance to the Welland
Wastewater Treatment Plant) as well as the need for any additional mitigation or
monitoring.
Environmental Effects
The assessment of air quality focused on predicting changes in the
concentrations of selected indicator components. The Region assessed noise
using sensitive receptors and comparing modelled results to ministry standards.
The assessment of geological and hydrogeological components involved
reviewing previous groundwater monitoring results in the study area, estimating
leachate generation and developing predictions for potential impacts. Surface
water quality and quantity were assessed through a review of existing flow data,
modelling surface water runoff and predicting peak flow and quality conditions for
the alternatives.
The assessment of biological and ecosystem impacts utilized a data review
including published information, visual surveys and mapping of biological
components, as well as results of surface water assessments, to quantify and
assess potential impacts to aquatic biota, fish habitat, vegetation communities
and wildlife habitat. Land use impacts involved examining the City of Welland
Official Plan and relevant zoning bylaws; and, a review of secondary sources
was conducted to examine impacts to cultural, built and natural heritage
resources.
The socioeconomic assessment involved reviewing information related to the
need for continued operation of the landfill site to satisfy resident waste disposal
demands, potential effects related to the Niagara Central Airport (i.e. effects on
gulls), and potential impacts to landscapes and views. The assessment of
landscape appearance and views from St. George Park were a critical
component of determining the preferred alternative of expanding the landfill.

September 2015
21
3.2.1 Key Issues
Key issues regarding the EA process completed by the Region for the
Humberstone Landfill Expansion were gathered during the pre-submission
consultation and the EA review comment period. These submissions can be
found in Appendix B. All comments, including the Region’s responses and the
ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 -3.
Through the review of the final EA, staff from the ministry determined whether or
not the Region followed the EA process, and have incorporated the commitments
in the approved ToR into the final EA that was submitted for review and a
decision. No GRT, public or Aboriginal comments were received on the final EA
with regards to the EA process. Ministry staff have concluded that there are no
key issues with the Region’s EA planning process for the proposed project.
3.2.2 Conclusion
Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the Region’s
decision making process. The EA contains an explanation of the problem that
prompted the EA. The Region considered a reasonable range of alternative
methods to the undertaking and evaluated them in a defined study area that took
into consideration the EAA’s broad definition of the environment.
The EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the study
areas and identifies potential effects of the alternatives. The EA also includes
monitoring and contingency plans (such as surface and groundwater monitoring
and contingency) to ensure any potential negative impacts of the undertaking are
minimized.
The EA adequately describes the advantages and disadvantages of the
proposed undertaking to the environment based on the potential environmental
effects. Requirements of the EAA for consultation with the public, GRT and
Aboriginal communities have been met. The ministry is satisfied that the EA was
completed in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of
the EAA.

September 2015
22
3.3 Proposed Undertaking
The proposed undertaking is described in Section 8 of the EA (see also Section 2
of this Review) and was evaluated based on the net impacts of each alternative
and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of
the environment was used to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed
undertaking. The proposed undertaking is to vertically expand the landfill,
resulting in the addition of 2.4 million m3
of fill area. The Region has selected
preferred methods of expanding the landfill and treating the leachate.
3.3.1 Key Issues
Key issues regarding the EA process completed by the Region for the
Humberstone Landfill Expansion were gathered during the pre-submission
consultation and the EA review comment period. Key issues that were raised are
summarized below. The original submissions can be found in Appendix B. All
comments, including the Region’s responses and the ministry’s level of
satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 – 3.
Leachate Mound
Ministry staff requested clarification about the potential for the height of the
present leachate mound underneath the waste to increase, as a leachate mound
can decrease the shear strength of the waste. The Region responded that the
increasing density of the waste over time, and the associated potential relatively
small decrease in its permeability, is not expected to change the leachate mound
significantly. The shear strength properties of the waste used for the stability
analysis are considered appropriate.
In light of the above analysis and the information contained in the EA, the
ministry has no outstanding concerns with respect to potential changes to the
leachate mound under an expanded landfill.
Climate Change and Provincially Significant Wetland
Ministry staff raised a concern about the potential for failure of the increased
slope of the expanded landfill and how this may impact the adjacent PSW in the
event of an extreme weather event due to climate change. The Region
responded that most of the precipitation from high intensity events will runoff the

September 2015
23
landfill rather than infiltrate into the waste. The Region further stated that as the
height of the landfill progresses, the side slopes will be progressively finished and
re-vegetated to encourage runoff, and the working face area will be kept to a
minimum, which will also reduce unfinished areas available for infiltration. In
response to the comment, the Region ran a slope stability model to simulate
saturated conditions as suggested. The model resulted in a safety factor of 1.3,
which is considered acceptable, especially for short-term conditions.
The ministry discussed this comment and response with the Region in July 2015.
Following this discussion, the ministry recommended that the ECA application for
the landfill include an evaluation of the landfill’s vulnerability to extreme weather
events, mitigation and adaptation measures, a monitoring plan and periodic re-
evaluation of the above measures. The Region responded that further study of
extreme weather is unnecessary based on a safety factor of 1.3 when the landfill
mound would be submerged in a flood scenario. Leachate seep inspections will
continue to occur on a monthly basis to identify potential areas of concerns in the
waste mound.
Ministry staff requested additional consideration of potential climate change
impacts (e.g. extreme changes in temperature or precipitation) and the Region’s
mitigation or adaptation strategies for such impacts. Staff also requested more
information about the expected landfill gas capture from its landfill gas collection
and control system. The Region added a more detailed qualitative and
quantitative discussion in its final EA related to climate change adaptation and
greenhouse gas mitigation. The EA indicates that the Region has been
implementing and will continue to implement best management practices plans,
which are flexible to adapt to a changing climate. The EA also indicates that the
landfill gas collection and control system is expected to capture 75% of landfill
greenhouse gas emissions, thus providing a large portion of greenhouse gas
mitigation.
The ministry was satisfied with the responses and has no outstanding concerns
regarding slope failure or climate change in relation to the expanded landfill.
Wastewater Treatment
The Welland River Keepers stated concern about the capacity of the Welland
Wastewater Treatment Plant to treat the landfill’s wastewater in the event that the
treatment plant becomes overloaded. The Region responded that upgrades are

September 2015
24
being completed this year to the Welland Wastewater Treatment Plant including
a new phosphorous removal system. In addition, the Region is examining
opportunities for upgrades to current infrastructure to reduce the number of
overflow incidents. These incidents are caused by peak flow scenarios when the
level of surface water runoff and wastewater effluent exceeds the capacity of the
treatment facility. This scenario results in minor discharges of untreated effluent.
The ministry also notes that the EA indicates that the treatment plant currently
accepts an average of 74% of its rated capacity and that the estimated current
and future leachate volume of the landfill represents 1.1% of the total yearly flow
currently processed by the treatment plant.
ministry has no outstanding concerns with respect to the capacity for the Welland
Wastewater Treatment Plant to treat the leachate generated by the landfill.
Odour
A member of the public stated concern about the effect of emissions of strong
odours from the landfill site to the surrounding residential areas. The Region
responded that after multiple odour studies, the source of emissions was
identified to be nearby commercial and agricultural operations, and not from
landfill operations. The ministry also notes that the EA states there have seldom
been odour complaints received to date through the Region’s complaints protocol
associated with day to day landfill operational activities.
ministry has no outstanding concerns related to potential odour impacts from the
proposed expansion.
Views from St. George Park
A member of the public commented stated concern about the landfill expansion
due to impacts to views from St. George Park to the north of the site. The Region
responded that the alternative expansion method selected will minimize the
visual impact on St. George Park. The ministry notes that the EA specifies that
as a mitigation measure for impacted views, the Region will be planting
coniferous trees on the existing berm that are expected to block the view of the
increased height of the expanded landfill.

September 2015
25
In light of the above and the information contained in the EA, the ministry has no
outstanding concerns with potential impacts to views from St. George Park.
There were no outstanding concerns from GRT technical reviewers related to
groundwater, surface water, wastewater, air, noise/vibration, operational
compliance, biology, cultural heritage or agriculture.
Aboriginal and Treaty Rights
The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) submitted comments to the
ministry on July 16, 2015. Their letter raised concerns over the impact to treaty
rights as well as the Region and ministry not engaging with HDI on the proposed
project. There were no concerns raised by any other Aboriginal communities.
Monitoring Programs
The Region has committed to continue its existing monitoring plans for
groundwater, surface water, leachate, gull management and post-closure
vegetation monitoring. The Region will implement a monitoring plan following the
installation of the vegetative plantings proposed to screen the views of the
landfilling operations from St. George Park. The Region also commits to continue
its contingency plans for groundwater and surface water.
The ministry is satisfied with the monitoring program as proposed in the EA,
subject to additional approvals that may be required for the expansion.
3.3.2 Conclusion
The Region has provided responses to all comments received, including those
not detailed above. A summary of all comments and the Region’s responses are
located in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of this Review.
Ministry staff are satisfied that the Region has met the requirements of the ToR
and EAA for the components of the EA raised in Section 3.3.1 above, as well as
those raised in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
The ministry is also satisfied that the proposed vertical expansion of the landfill
will be designed and operated to comply with the ministry’s standards and that
the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through
the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval, or through

September 2015
26
additional work that must be carried out by the Region in support of future
approval applications, if the EA is approved.
A final review period and a recommendation to the Minister about this EA will
follow the publishing of this Review. If the EA is approved by the Minister,
conditions specific to the proposed undertaking may be proposed to ensure the
environment remains protected.

September 2015
27
4. Summary of the Ministry Review
The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis of the Region’s EA for the
vertical expansion of the Humberstone Landfill.
This Review concludes that the EA complies with the requirements of the
approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The EA has
provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the
application to proceed with the undertaking.
The Review concludes that the EA has assessed and evaluated alternative
methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential
environmental effects of the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking,
and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the
potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.
The ministry is satisfied that the Region provided sufficient opportunities for the
GRT, public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to comment during the
development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT and the public have been
addressed by the Region or a commitment has been made to address them
through additional work that will be completed as part of future approval
requirements.
If the proposed undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several
standard conditions that are included in an approval such as the requirement to
conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a
protocol for responding to complaints received during all the phases of the
undertaking. There may also be specific conditions imposed on this proposed
undertaking if warranted.

September 2015
28
5. What Happens Now?
The Review will be made available for a five-week
comment period. During this time, all interested parties,
including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities
can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed
undertaking, the EA and/or the Ministry Review. At this
time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all
or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal
for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not
been addressed.
At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff
will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning
whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with
the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether
the proposed undertaking should be approved. When
making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose
of the EAA, the ToR, the EA, the Review, the comments
submitted during the EA and the Review comment
periods and any other matters the Minister may consider
relevant.
The Minister will make one of the following decisions:
• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking;
• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions; or
• Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking.
Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the
entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Environmental
Review Tribunal for a decision.
If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to
the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the
decision.
Next Step in the
EA Process
ToR Approval
↓
EA Preparation
↓
EA Submission
↓
EA Comment Period
↓
Ministry Review
↓
Review
Comment Period
↓
Minister’s Decision

September 2015
29
5.1 Additional Approvals Required
If EAA approval is granted, the Region will still require other
legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this
undertaking. Section 10.3 of the EA outlines additional
approvals that may be required. These approvals may
include:
• O. Reg. 232/98 Environmental Compliance Approval
related to waste management
• Ontario Water Resources Act Section 53 application
related to sewage works
• O. Reg. 163/06 Conservation Authorities Watercourse permit (if identified
by the conservation authority
These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.
5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking
The EA Code of Practice identifies a process to address minor and major
changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. Any proposed change to the
undertaking would have to be considered in the context of the EAA and Ontario
Regulation 101/07 (Waste Management Projects) and any environmental
assessment requirements met before any change to the undertaking can be
implemented.
If EAA approval is
granted, the
proponent must still
obtain any other
permits or
approvals required
to construct and
operate this
undertaking.

APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS

1
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and Terms of Reference Requirements of the
Environmental Assessment
EA Decision
Making
Process
EAA and ToR
Requirements
Description and Characteristics
of the Requirements
Analysis of the EA
Problem /
Opportunities
Identify an existing
problem or opportunity
The EA should contain a brief
explanation of the problem or
opportunity that prompted the
proposed activity.
• Complete
• Section 1.2 describes the need for and
description of the undertaking, that being the
landfill will run out of capacity in 2016 and an
additional 2.4 M m3
(25 years) of capacity is
required in order to address Niagara Region’s
long-term waste disposal needs for south
Niagara’s area municipalities
• Section 1.4 contains the purpose of the
undertaking, which is to provide environmentally
safe and cost effective disposal capacity for the
southern part of Niagara region for 25 years or
more, thus maintaining the Region’s long-term
disposal plan
Purpose of the
Undertaking:
s.6.1(2)(a)
ToR s. 1.2 and 3.3
If a specific undertaking has been
identified provide a brief
description.
Alternatives Description and
Statement of the
Rationale for the
Alternatives to:
Alternative to
s.6.1(2)(b)(iii)
ToR s. 2.5, 4.0 and 4.3
“Alternatives to” represent
functionally different ways of
addressing the problem or
opportunity.
A reasonable range of
“alternatives to” should be
identified and evaluated. The
proponent should be able to justify
that it has considered a
reasonable range of alternatives.
• Complete
• Sections 1.3 and 1.3.1 describe the intent and
rationale to focus the EA on Alternatives To, per
the approved ToR
• The EA focuses on considering one Alternative
To – vertical expansion. The EA also focuses on
assessing Alternative Methods for landfill
expansion and Alternative Methods for leachate
treatment (see below)

2
EA Decision
Making
Process
EAA and ToR
Requirements
of the Requirements
Analysis of the EA
The “do nothing” alternative to
should be included in the
evaluation and will represent the
“bench mark” situation.
Description and
Statement of the
Rationale for the
Alternatives methods:
Alternative Methods
s.6.1(2)(b)(ii)
ToR s. 5.0
“Alternative methods” include a
description of different ways of
implementing the preferred
“alternative to”
A reasonable range of “alternative
methods” should be identified and
outlined.
• Complete
• Sections 1.3.2-1.3.4 describe the rationale for
focusing on Alternative Methods and EA Studies
for landfill expansion and leachate treatment,
including over 10 years of past planning studies
for waste management in the region pointing to
landfill expansion as the preferred solution
• Section 4 describes the Alternative Methods – 3
for landfill expansion and 5 for leachate treatment
o Landfill expansion:
1. Uniform height increase
2. Higher at west (preferred)
3. Saddle-shaped
o Leachate treatment alternatives:
1. Continued use of Welland WWTP in
City of Welland (preferred)
2. Use of Niagara Region (Stanley)
WWTP in City of Niagara Falls
3. Use of Niagara Region (Seaway)
WWTP in City of Port Colborne
4. Use of Niagara Region (Anger)
WWTP in Town of Fort Erie
5. On-site treatment with discharge to
local surface water receiver

3
EA Decision
Making
Process
EAA and ToR
Requirements
of the Requirements
Analysis of the EA
Landfill Expansion Alternatives
• Section 6 compares landfill expansion
alternatives based on environmental components
and includes advantages and disadvantages of
each alternative for each environmental
component
o The following 7 environmental components
were used in the assessment: atmosphere,
geology and hydrogeology, surface water,
biology, land use, culture, and socio-
economic
o 14 environmental sub-components are
used
o Table 6.1-1 summarizes potential effects of
the alternatives to each environmental
subcomponents
• Alternatives were comparatively assessed
qualitatively and quantitatively and compared
using ranks and weights, with weightings
determined from public input
• As noted in section 6.1, key advantages to the
preferred landfill expansion (Alt 2, highest in west)
were that equipment will operate next to closest
receptors for shortest period of time, views from
St George Park can be entirely mitigated, and
least potential for shadowing or obstructing views
of Feeder Canal

4
EA Decision
Making
Process
EAA and ToR
Requirements
of the Requirements
Analysis of the EA
Leachate Treatment Alternatives
• Section 7 and Table 7.5-1 compare leachate
treatment alternatives, using the preferred landfill
expansion alternative (Alt 2), based on criteria
including technical feasibility, environmental
(sewage conveyance, air quality, odour, surface
water) and required approvals
o Alt 1 (Welland WWTP) preferred due to
treatment processes at the plant, expected
leachate concentrations, and dilution ration
(landfill effluent is 1.1% of total inflow to
WWTP)
Preferred Alternatives
• Section 8 describes the preferred undertaking
(preferred landfill expansion and leachate
treatment methods)
o Landfill expansion: Alt 2 (higher (16 m)
west side and uniform (6 m) increases to
central and east sides)
o Leachate treatment: Alt 1 (continue to
collect leachate in LCS and convey to
sewer drains to Welland WWTP)
Evaluation Description of the
Environment
s.6.1(2)(c)(i)
ToR s. 7.0
Proponents must consider the
broad definition of the environment
including the natural, biophysical,
social, economic, built and cultural
conditions.
The EA must provide a description
of the existing environmental
conditions in the study area.
• Complete
• The study areas are defined in section 2.1.3,
Figure 2.1-1 and Table 2.1-1
• 3 study areas used: on-site (within landfill
property boundary), site-vicinity (within 500 m
of landfill property line) and extended study
areas for certain environmental components
(atmosphere, geology and hydrogeology,
surface water, culture and socio-economic)

5
EA Decision
Making
Process
EAA and ToR
Requirements
of the Requirements
Analysis of the EA
The EA must identify those
elements of the environment that
may be reasonably expected to be
affected, either directly or
indirectly, by the proposed
undertaking and/or the
alternatives.
• Section 5 describes the existing environment
potentially affected by the project or alternatives
(natural, social, cultural, economic)
Description of Potential
s.6.1(2)(c)(ii)
ToR s. 6.0
Both positive and negative
environmental effects should be
discussed.
The EA must identify methods and
studies used to analyze the
potential environmental effects.
The methods used are contingent
on the type of project.
Impact assessment methods and
criteria used during the evaluation
should be identified.
The methods chosen must be
clear, traceable and replicable so
that interested parties can
understand the analysis and logic
used throughout the EA.
• Complete
• Section 9 predicts and assesses environmental
effects for each environmental subcomponent,
using indicators

6
EA Decision
Making
Process
EAA and ToR
Requirements
of the Requirements
Analysis of the EA
Description of the
Actions Necessary to
Prevent, Change,
Mitigate or Remedy the
s.6.1(2)(c)(iii)
ToR s. 6.0
A description of future
commitments, studies and a work
plan may be included as part of
the actions necessary to prevent,
change, mitigate or remedy
environmental effects for each
alternative for the ultimate purpose
of comparing them.
• Complete
• Section 9 contains mitigation measures for the
predicted environmental effects (primarily
screening views from St George Park using trees
and berms)
Evaluation of
Advantages and
Disadvantages to the
Environment
s.6.1(2)(d)
ToR s. 5.0
The preferred alternative should
be identified through this
evaluation.
• Complete
• Section 6 contains advantages and
disadvantages of each landfill expansion
alternative method based on environmental
components
• Section 7 compares the leachate treatment
alternative methods through in part identifying
advantages and disadvantages
Description of
Consultation with
Interested Stakeholders
s.6.1(2)(e)
ToR s. 8.0
A description of stakeholder
consultation that occurred during
the preparation of the EA needs
be documented and should
include consultation methods
used, frequency of consultation,
dates that events occurred, target
audience, descriptions of key
milestones for which stakeholders
are providing input, comments
received.
The EA must identify any
Aboriginal consultation efforts that
have been made including
methods for identifying potentially
• Complete
• Section 3 describes the proponent’s consultation
methods and activities for the EA, and Volume 2
contains the Record of Consultation
• Consultation activities included:
o Draft EA 5-week public comment period
o 4 open houses
o 4 EA Advisory Group meetings
o Meetings and correspondence with public,
GRT, Aboriginal groups, community
organizations, local businesses and local
politicians
o Newspaper notices
o Project website
o Media release

7
EA Decision
Making
Process
EAA and ToR
Requirements
of the Requirements
Analysis of the EA
interested First Nations, who was
consulted, when and how
consultation occurred and any
comments received from First
Nations.
The EA should include outline
conflict resolution techniques to
resolve issues used by the
proponent to resolve outstanding
issues with any stakeholders.
There must be clear
documentation as to how issues
and concerns have been
addressed.
• Sections 3.4 and 3.8 describes Aboriginal
consultation activities, which included:
o Draft EA comment period
o Meetings
o Site tours
o Letters and correspondence
Selection
Process
Proposed Undertaking The description of the undertaking
should specify what the proponent
is seeking approval for under the
EAA.
The description should include
information on the location,
attributes, dimensions, emissions
etc.
The evaluation process should
identify which is the preferred
undertaking.
• Complete
• Section 8 describes the preferred undertaking
(preferred landfill expansion and leachate
treatment methods), as well as in-design
mitigation measure and project phasing
Description and
Statement of the
Rationale for the
undertaking
s.6.1(2)(b)(i)
ToR s. 5.0

8
EA Decision
Making
Process
EAA and ToR
Requirements
of the Requirements
Analysis of the EA
Next Steps and
Additional
Commitments
Additional ToR
Commitments
ToR s. 11.0
Outline any further commitments
made by the proponent in the ToR.
• Complete
• Section 11 (Tables 11-1 and 11-2) contains
summary of commitments made during ToR as
well as commitments to mitigation, monitoring and
compensation made during EA
• Section 10 describes monitoring plans for
relevant environmental disciplines, such as
groundwater and surface water, leachate,
terrestrial ecosystems, service to residents and
landscape and views
Additional Approvals
ToR s. 9.0
Outline additional approval
requirements. Provide sufficient
detail about the nature of the
approval.
• Complete
• Section 10.3 outlines other regulatory approvals
required for the landfill expansion (ECAs under
the EPA and OWRA and, if required,
conservation authority approval)

APPENDIX B
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED DURING INITIAL COMMENT PERIOD
Contents are available in hard copy at Environmental Approvals Branch

From: McLeod, Sasha (MOECC)
To: peter.kryger@niagararegion.ca
Subject: MOECC comments on final EA
Date: July 24, 2015 12:58:09 PM
Attachments: MOECC waste (Ranjani Munasinghe) July 23-15.doc
Hi Peter,

Please find attached final comments from the MOECC waste reviewer on the final EA. Please
provide responses to these comments – in particular I will be interested in your response to the
suggestions made for the ECA application.

The remaining MOECC technical reviewers indicated no further comments or concerns with the
final EA related to wastewater, air, noise/vibration, groundwater, surface water and Niagara district
matters.

Please provide the completed GRT, public and Aboriginal response tables to me by July 29. Let me
know if that timing poses an issue.

As we have discussed, the next step in the EA process is MOECC’s preparation of the Ministry
Review, beginning July 24 for a 5-week period. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Sasha

Sasha McLeod
Project Officer
Floor
Toronto ON M4V 1P5
T: 416-314-8214 E: sasha.mcleod@ontario.ca

2069 (2011/10)
Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals
Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 12A
Toronto ON M4V 1L5
Tel.: 416 314-8001
Fax: 416 314-8452
Ministère de l’Environnement et de
l’Action en matière de changement
climatique
Direction des autorisations
environnementales
2, avenue St. Clair Ouest
Étage 12A
Toronto ON M4V 1L5
Tél : 416 314-8001
Téléc. : 416 314-8452
July 23, 2015
MEMORANDUM
To: Sasha McLeod
Project Officer
From: Ranjani Munasinghe, P.Eng.
Review Engineer
RE: Review of Draft Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of the
Humberstone Landfill
EA File No 03-08-02
EAIMS No.14120
The technical reviewer has reviewed report entitled “Environmental Assessment of the Proposed
Expansion of the Humberstone Landfill”, dated June 2015 prepared for the Regional
Municipality of Niagara (RMON) by Golder Associates (Golder). I have reviewed sections
pertaining to engineering aspect of waste disposal.
The undertaking is to provide environmentally safe and cost-effective, disposal capacity for the
southern part of the Niagara Region for a period of approximately 25 years or more. Regional
Municipality of Niagara (Region) owns and operates Humberstone landfill site (Site), ECA NO.
A120401, located in the City of Welland. The Site comprises of a 37.8 hectare landfilling site
within a total site area of 62.1 hectares. The current approved capacity is 2.2 million cubic
meters. The RMON proposes to expand the Site by an additional 2.4 million cubic meters to
provide above disposal capacity.
Existing Site infrastructure under the current approval includes the site entrance, weigh scale,
administration/scale building, internal access roads, drop off facilities, composting area, PCB
containment cell, LGCCS (comprising of horizontal trenches, vertical wells, perimeter header, a
blower and enclosed flare), SWM ponds and ditches, perimeter LCS and buffer areas.

- 2 -
2069 (2011/10)
Given the Site configuration and boundaries, vertical expansion was identified as the only
available option. Three different configurations for the vertical expansion and five different
leachate treatment alternatives were considered and studied.
The preferred configuration for vertical expansion was identified as the alternative 2 where
higher vertical lifts would be placed in the west side. The preferred option for the leachate
treatment was determined to be the current existing disposal arrangement.
The existing components such as the perimeter leachate collection, stormwater management
ponds, and landfill gas collection and control are to be utilized with some
modifications/expansions to be designed at the design stage.
The description of the proposed undertaking contains sufficient degree of detail, on a conceptual
level and the environmental impacts from the proposed waste management activities would
comply with the Ministry’s requirements.
During the evaluation process of the alternatives to landfilling, Niagara Region did not consider
the safety aspects of slope failure during the operations stage when potential extreme weather
events occur due to climate change (e.g. high intensity atmospheric precipitation following
prolonged periods of atmospheric precipitation). There is a concern as there is only a 30 m
buffer and there is a PSW bordering the landfill and the height of the waste mound is 27
m. Albeit climate change considerations were not part of the TOR, it is in the best interest of the
health and safety of the public and the environment to consider the effects of climate change
where required.
Therefore, it is recommended that the following be included in the application for Part V, EPA
approval:
1. An evaluation of the landfills vulnerability to extreme weather events and mitigation and
adaptation measures shall be included.
2. Monitoring plan and periodic re-evaluation of the above measures shall be included.
Ranjani Munasinghe, P. Eng.
Senior Review Engineer- Team 3
Cc Dale Gable, Supervisor, Team 1

To: Kryger, Peter
Cc: Munasinghe, Ranjani (MOECC); Gable, Dale (MOECC)
Subject: Ranjani"s questions on final EA
Date: July 14, 2015 12:52:41 PM
Hi Peter. July 21 11:00-12:00 should work for us. Please include myself, Ranjani and Dale on the
invite.

Here are Ranjani’s questions:

1. During the evaluation process of the alternatives to landfilling, Niagara Region did
not consider the safety aspects of slope failure during the operations stage when
potential extreme weather events occur due to climate change (e.g. high intensity
atmospheric precipitation following prolonged periods of atmospheric precipitation).
There are potential for saturated waste conditions that exist in which slope failure can
occur during this stage where significant infiltration of precipitation may occur.
There is a concern as there is only a 30 m buffer and there is a PSW bordering the
landfill and the height of the waste mound is 27 m. Has the Region determined that
factor of safety for slope failure under “saturated” waste conditions? What are your
mitigation measures to avoid such failures?
2. Para 2, Page 8-4: Alternative 2- 4:1 about 20 m and then sloped at 5% to 28 m high, the F.
of safety is 1.5 for static loading; 1.4 seismic loading. Slope on the north side (where PSW
is) is 10:1 at the top. How does this change the Factor of safety?
3. Current leachate mound is calculated to be 4.2 m (2016). Will this height increase with
increasing weight of waste, increasing density (due to compaction and degradation)?
Leachate mound will decrease the shear strength of the waste.

Thanks,
Sasha

From: Kryger, Peter [mailto:peter.kryger@niagararegion.ca]
Sent: July 14, 2015 11:12 AM
To: McLeod, Sasha (MOECC)
Subject: RE: Climate change questions on final EA

Sasha:
How about Tuesday July 21 from 11am-12pm? Please confirm the time and I will have
Golder send out a meeting invite.
As discussed yesterday, we would appreciate the questions from Ranjani prior to that
meeting so we can be properly prepared.
Thanks,
Peter Kryger P. Geo.
Project Manager

Waste Management Services, Niagara Region
2201 St. Davids Rd. W., Thorold, Ont.
Phone - 905.980.6000 ext. 3736 Toll-free 1-800-263-7215
Fax - 905.687.8056
Cell - 905.933.4269
www.niagararegion.ca

From: McLeod, Sasha (MOECC) [mailto:Sasha.McLeod@ontario.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:55 AM
To: Kryger, Peter

Hi Peter, unfortunately Ranjani is on vacation on the 20th
. What about the morning of the 21st
?
Ranjani, Dale Gable and myself are currently available any time between 9-12.

From: Kryger, Peter [mailto:peter.kryger@niagararegion.ca]
Sent: July 14, 2015 9:52 AM

Sasha:
I have passed your comments along to Golder for them to start preparing responses.
Having said that, the project lead for Golder is on vacation this week. Can we have a call
on Monday July 20 to discuss the both your and Ranjani’s questions? We are available
from 11 to 12, or any time after 2. I would feel more comfortable if he was available for the
call. Does this work for you?
Thanks,
Peter Kryger P. Geo.
Project Manager
Waste Management Services, Niagara Region
2201 St. Davids Rd. W., Thorold, Ont.
Phone - 905.980.6000 ext. 3736 Toll-free 1-800-263-7215
Fax - 905.687.8056
Cell - 905.933.4269
www.niagararegion.ca

From: McLeod, Sasha (MOECC) [mailto:Sasha.McLeod@ontario.ca]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 3:52 PM
To: Kryger, Peter
Subject: Climate change questions on final EA

Hi Peter, I asked Ranjani if she can provide her questions re: slope stability in advance of the
teleconference and she is aiming for tomorrow. I’ll pass them on when I get them. In the meantime
I’d like to send you a few questions I had on the additions to the climate change section. We can
discuss these in our teleconference. Afterward, I may or may not include them in my formal

comments depending if I think it’d be helpful to request the written responses. (If it is just easier
for Golder to provide written responses to all, that is fine too.)

Questions on page 9-12 of the final EA in the GHG Mitigation section:
1. Table 9.1-6 lists the LFG flare as a source of GHG emissions, however the paragraph under
Table 9.1-7 says, “During post-closure and closure (assumed from 2042-2165), the
collection and flaring of the LFG will continue to provide GHG reductions at an average of
15,854 tonnes CO2e per year.” Can landfill gas flaring be both a source and reducer of
GHGs at the same time?

2. The same sentence mentioned in 1, “During post-closure and closure (assumed from 2042-
2165), the collection and flaring of the LFG will continue to provide GHG reductions at an
average of 15,854 tonnes CO2e per year,” suggests that closure is 123 years (2042-2165).
Does this mean the plan is for the Region to manage the LGCCS all this time?

3. Refer to the sentence, “This assessment indicated that the LGCCS will result in an average
reduction of GHG emissions per year over the 25 year operational life of the landfill
expansion project of approximately 71,085 tonnes CO2e.” Can you please clarify where this
figure came from? It doesn’t appear to come from the preceding tables on 9-12.

4. Is there a specific target for that referenced in the sentence, “One of the objectives of
reducing GHG emissions is working towards achieving a target for the region?” If so, what
is the target?

Thanks,
Sasha
The Regional Municipality of Niagara Confidentiality Notice The information contained in
this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the
use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, disclosure, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this
communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of it from
your computer system. Thank you.

Sent:                                           July 13, 2015 3:52 PM
To:                                               peter.kryger@niagararegion.ca
Subject:                                     Climate change questions on final EA

Hi Peter, I asked Ranjani if she can provide her questions re: slope stability in advance of the teleconference and she is aiming
for tomorrow. I’ll pass them on when I get them. In the meantime I’d like to send you a few questions I had on the additions to
the climate change section. We can discuss these in our teleconference. Afterward, I may or may not include them in my
formal comments depending if I think it’d be helpful to request the written responses. (If it is just easier for Golder to provide
written responses to all, that is fine too.)

Questions on page 9-12 of the final EA in the GHG Mitigation section:
1.       Table 9.1-6 lists the LFG flare as a source of GHG emissions, however the paragraph under Table 9.1-7 says, “During
post-closure and closure (assumed from 2042-2165), the collection and flaring of the LFG will continue to provide GHG
reductions at an average of 15,854 tonnes CO2e per year.” Can landfill gas flaring be both a source and reducer of
GHGs at the same time?

2.       The same sentence mentioned in 1, “During post-closure and closure (assumed from 2042-2165), the collection and
flaring of the LFG will continue to provide GHG reductions at an average of 15,854 tonnes CO2e per year,” suggests
that closure is 123 years (2042-2165). Does this mean the plan is for the Region to manage the LGCCS all this time?

3.       Refer to the sentence, “This assessment indicated that the LGCCS will result in an average reduction of GHG emissions
per year over the 25 year operational life of the landfill expansion project of approximately 71,085 tonnes CO2e.” Can
you please clarify where this figure came from? It doesn’t appear to come from the preceding tables on 9-12.

4.       Is there a specific target for that referenced in the sentence, “One of the objectives of reducing GHG emissions is
working towards achieving a target for the region?” If so, what is the target?

Thanks,
Sasha

Ministry of Natural Ministère des Richesses
Resources and Forestry naturelles et des Forêts
Guelph District Telephone: (519) 826-4955
1 Stone Road West Facsimile: (519) 826-4929
Guelph, Ontario
N1G 4Y2
1 | P a g e
July 16, 2015
Sasha McLeod, Project Officer
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor
Toronto, ON,
M4V 1P5
Re: Notice of Submission of Environmental Assessment (EA) – Proposed Expansion of the
Humberstone Landfill EA Report– City of Welland, Niagara Region – Ministry of Natural
Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Comments
Ms. McLeod,
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is in receipt of the Notice of Submission of
Environmental Assessment (EA), for the proposed expansion of the Humberstone Landfill in the City of
Welland. The EA Report has been completed in accordance with the reporting requirements for an
individual EA under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). MNRF staff have had an opportunity to
review the report, and can offer the MOECC the following comments for consideration.
The Ministry previously provided comments to the project team on March 4, April 16, and May 21, 2015
on the draft EA Report. These comments included the recommendation to review whether the existing
landfill fencing should be upgraded to prevent listed turtles from potentially accessing the site.
Blanding’s Turtle is known for the areas west of the landfill. Blanding’s Turtle is listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the species receives both individual and general habitat
protection under the Act. The intent of this recommendation is to ensure that both the species and the
operations of the landfill will not be impacted if the turtles inadvertently enter the site (e.g. attempts to
nest in suitable areas of the landfill).
MNRF Comments
It is understood that Niagara Region has acknowledged the above recommendation, and will review the
existing fencing for the purposes of discouraging turtles from accessing the site. Additional upgrades to
the fence will also be added if required. This response is provided in Section E3.0 – Comment Response
Table in the EA Report (Volume 2).
MNRF staff appreciates the project team’s attention to this recommendation. It may however, be
appropriate to also summarize this response in Volume 1 of the EA Report. This may help to ensure
clear direction is provided to support the implementation of the project. For example, a minor

2 | P a g e
addendum could be attached to Table 11-2 in Section 11.0 - Summary of Commitments in the EA Report
(Volume 1) to highlight the potential mitigation strategy.
Closing
The Ministry has no significant concerns with the submitted EA for the proposed expansion of the
Humberstone Landfill.
MNRF staff appreciates the project team’s attention to the comments provided to-date on the EA. It is
suggested that the response to the MNRF’s comments could also be included as an addendum to the
report’s summary of commitments/recommendations in Volume 1.
If further comment or clarification is required, please contact the undersigned.
Regards,
Originally signed by
Dave Marriott, District Planner
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Guelph District
1 Stone Road West
Guelph, ON, N1G 4Y2
Phone: (519) 826-4926

From:                                         Pastori, Andrea (ENERGY)
Sent:                                           July 21, 2015 3:24 PM
Subject:                                     RE: Reminder comment deadline July 24 - Humberstone Landfill Expansion EA

Hi Sasha,

No comments/concerns from the Ministry of Energy.

Thanks,
Andrea

Sent: July-13-15 9:27 AM
To: Marriott, David (MNRF); Minkin, Dan (MTCS); Van de Valk, Jackie (OMAFRA); Myslicki, Lisa (IO); Pastori, Andrea (ENERGY);
Reed, Peter (IO); Aurini, Shawn (MTO)
Cc: White, Jason (MTO); Hewitt, Tom (MTO)
Subject: Reminder comment deadline July 24 - Humberstone Landfill Expansion EA

Hi everyone,

I understand you were contacted by Niagara Region on/around June 5, 2015 to provide you with the final environmental
assessment for the proposed Humberstone Landfill Expansion and to invite any comments from your ministry. This is a
friendly reminder that comments are due to me via email by next Friday, July 24. I would appreciate if you could confirm that
you will be able to provide comments by this date. If you have no concerns or comments with the final EA (i.e. if your
comments on the draft have been addressed and/or there are no new concerns), please let me know by email as well.

Thank you,
Sasha

Sasha McLeod
Project Officer
Floor
Toronto ON M4V 1P5

From:                                         Minkin, Dan (MTCS)
Sent:                                           July 24, 2015 11:51 AM

Hi Sasha,
I’ve reviewed the final submission and I am satisfied that our comments on the draft have been addressed. Do you need a
form or formal letter to this effect from me?

Dan Minkin
Heritage Planner
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport
Culture Division | Programs and Services Branch | Culture Services Unit
401 Bay Street, Suite 1700
Toronto, Ontario M7A 0A7
Tel. 416.314.7147 | Fax. 416.314.7175

Sent: July 20, 2015 4:21 PM
To: Minkin, Dan (MTCS)

Hi Dan,

Could you let me know if MTCS will be providing any comments on the Humberstone EA by Friday? Or whether you have no
further comments on the EA? You had some comments on the draft EA and I’d like to confirm with you if those have been
addressed. Looks like you only had issue with the terminology used. I’ve attached the comments for reference.

Please confirm if you have no further comments.

Thanks!
Sasha

Sent: July 13, 2015 9:27 AM
To: Marriott, David (MNRF); Minkin, Dan (MTCS); Van de Valk, Jackie (OMAFRA); Myslicki, Lisa (IO); Pastori, Andrea (ENERGY);
Reed, Peter (IO); Aurini, Shawn (MTO)
Cc: White, Jason (MTO); Hewitt, Tom (MTO)
Subject: Reminder comment deadline July 24 - Humberstone Landfill Expansion EA

Hi everyone,

I understand you were contacted by Niagara Region on/around June 5, 2015 to provide you with the final environmental
assessment for the proposed Humberstone Landfill Expansion and to invite any comments from your ministry. This is a
friendly reminder that comments are due to me via email by next Friday, July 24. I would appreciate if you could confirm that
you will be able to provide comments by this date. If you have no concerns or comments with the final EA (i.e. if your
comments on the draft have been addressed and/or there are no new concerns), please let me know by email as well.

Thank you,
Sasha

Sasha McLeod
Project Officer
Floor
Toronto ON M4V 1P5

From:
Date: June 11, 2015 9:59:24 PM
Hello Ms. Mcleod,
My name is . My email is in regards to the proposed expansion of the
Humberstone Landfill in Welland. I'm writing to tell you that I am very much
opposed to the idea of an expansion. The odours the dump emits on the
surrounding residential areas is offensive and makes our backyards useless. Some
days/nights we can't have our windows open because the smell is so bad.
Thanks for taking the time to read my concerns. Please don't expand the dump.
Regards,

From:
Subject: Humberstone Landfill
Date: July 17, 2015 6:12:28 PM
Hello Sasha, I am against this landfill going any higher. For over fifty years we have had to
look at a hill of mud. I am talking of the view from St'George Park. Before the dump goes
higher, the eyesore should be treed over. Why is there no trees planted to hide the mess? I
will try and send pics when i get a chance.
Why do we have to bury our garbage? why can't a plant be built and the garbage
processed indoors? Everything could be recycled and reused. Anything left over could be
made into fuel pellets and burned somewhere else or onsite. Putting garbage into the
ground is not a wise solution in my books.
Thanks,

From: Batista, Cindy (MOECC)
Cc: Batista, Cindy (MOECC)
Subject: FW: Humberstone EA
Date: June 18, 2015 1:44:27 PM
FYI . . .

Cindy Batista | Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Services | Environmental Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment & Climate Change |135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor, Toronto, ON
M4V 1P5
(: 416-314-7222 |Ê: 416-314-8452 | *: cindy.batista@ontario.ca

From: mike dickman
Sent: June-17-15 7:39 PM
To: Batista, Cindy (MOECC)
Subject: Humberstone EA
Ms. Cindy Batista 17 June 2015
Project Officer Environmental Approvals Branch
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
2 St. Clair Avenue West, 14th Floor
Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 Canada

Dear Ms. Batista,

As the chair of the Welland River Keepers’ Preservation Committee I reviewed the
Environmental Assessment Report of the Proposed Expansion of the Humberstone
Landfill. At the 16 June 2015 meeting of the Welland River Keepers (WRK) I
discussed my findings with members of the WRK.

Over a year ago I notified the MOECC that the Welland River Keepers
unanimously agreed that the proposed Humberstone terms of reference failed to
address the question of what happens to Humberstone Landfill generated leachate
during periods when the Welland sewage treatment plant (STP) is overloaded. In my
review of the Environmental Assessment Report of the Proposed Expansion of the
Humberstone Landfill (here after referred to as the Humberstone Landfill EA Report) I
expected an answer to this question. Although the Humberstone Landfill EA report
recognized that during these periods of overload, wastewater reaching the STP
receives only a very superficial treatment it made no attempt to evaluate how many
days each year the Welland STP was so overloaded that it was unable to adequately
treat the waste water that it received.

Without this critical information it is impossible to determine what impacts the
release of untreated leachate will have on the biota of the receiving water during
periods of overload. The option of trucking the Humberstone generated leachate to
other sewage treatment plants was incomplete because it made no assessment of

which of these other treatment plants might also be overloaded during heavy rainfall
events. Instead it calculated how many miles the trucks would be required to go if
they transported leachate from Humberstone on an annual basis.

The Humberstone Landfill EA must specify how the Humberstone Landfill will
avoid sending their untreated leachate into the Welland River during periods when
the STP is overloaded.

Sincerely,

Mike Dickman, Ph. D.
Chair, Welland River Keepers Preservation Committee

CC:
Gareth Mongrain, Chair,
Humberstone Landfill Environmental Assessment Advisory Group

Jay Mitchell, Chair, Humberstone Landfill PLC

Silvio Mucciarelli, Associate Director, Waste Disposal Operations;
Peter Kryger, Project Manager, Niagara Region

Alexander AJ Wray
Assistant Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Services
135 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 7
Toronto, ON
M4V 1L5
Dear Mr. Wray:
RE: Humberstone Landfill (Project)
Humberstone Final EA Report — Comment Submission
Our File No.: 030-105
Please be advised that we are in receipt of your email of July 14, 2015.
We are also in receipt of two volumes of material from Golder Associates dated June
2015. The two volumes of materials run something into the range of 800 plus pages.
We wish to advise at the outset that the proposed expansion of the Humberstone Landfill
will impair, infringe and otherwise interfere with established Haudenosaunee treaty rights
and in particular rights related to the treaty of Fort Albany 1701.
To date there has been no engagement on the proposed Project, which would uphold the
Honour of the Crown.
In particular, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) has failed to
undertake any engagement process in relation to the infringement upon treaty rights.
On initial review of the materials provided by Golder Associates we note that we did
provide correspondence throughout the development of the Terms of Reference however
we did not receive a specific reply to our issues raised at that time.
• For your ease of reference please refer to paragraph 3.4 of the report which is
contained at page 3-2 of Volume I of the report.
I;
July 16, 2015
OUR LAND, OUR LAW, OUR PEOPLE, OUR FUTURE
Six Nations of the Grand River Territory • Suite 407 - 16 Sunrise Court • P.O. Box 714 • Ohsweken, Ontario NOA IMO
Telephone • 519.445.4222 Facsimile • 519.445.2389 • hdi2@bel1net.ca

2
We note specifically that the Report does mention the correspondence exchanged
between Golder and Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) but does not include
that correspondence in the Report. We believe this is significant as the correspondence
sets out specifically that HDI has a process, which provides for a meaningful engagement
process.
We have attached the following given the omissions in the Golder Report:
July 5, 2012 HDI correspondence to Niagara Region explaining process and
requirement of application and fee to review project
March 14, 2013 Correspondence from Niagara Region advising of inclusion of
litigation lawyers
April 9, 2013 HDI correspondence advising on failure of Niagara Region to
honour approach established by HDI on behalf of the
Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC)
We can advise that Niagara Region has not undertaken any steps to obtain the consent of
the Haudenosaunee or otherwise justify the infringements. At the same time we can
confirm that MOECC has not undertaken any steps to obtain the consent of the
Haudenosaunee or otherwise justify the infringements
We wish to invite the MOECC to meet with HDI at its earliest convenience to determine
how and when the MOECC proposes to discharge its obligations in relation to the
proposed Project.
We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Yours very truly,
Hazel E. Hill
Director
Attach. (3)

Haudenosaunee Development Institute
July 5, 2012
Catherine Habermebi
Acting Director
Niagara Region
Public Works
Waste Management Services
2201 St. David’s Road, P.O. Box 1042
Thorold, ON
L2V 4T7
Dear Ms. Habermehi:
Re: Humberstone Landfill Site
Our File No.: 030-105
Thank you for your letter dated May 25, 2012 and attachment.
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs (‘HCCC’) has legislated the Haudenosaunee
Development Institute (‘HDI’) to represent HCCC interests in the development of lands
within areas of Haudenosaunee jurisdiction, including but not limited to the land
prescribed by the Haldimand Proclamation and the 1701 Treaty Area.
We can confirm that the Haudenosaunee have treaty rights, in particular in the area
contemplated by your Project, including but not limited to, the right to free and
undisturbed harvesting. As the proposed Project will have a negative impact upon those
treaty rights, the nature and scope of engagement required is significantly above and V
beyond what is commonly referred to as “consultation”.
The HDI has established and administers a regulatory framework, which identifies,
registers and regulates development in compliance with the regulatory obligations
outlined in our Lands Rights Statement, the Haudenosaunee Green Plan and
Haudenosaunee Development Protocol.
Part of the process requires an application for Engagement to be submitted to the HDI
which I have attached for your ease of reference. The Application for Engagement
provides proponents a structured engagement process which allows the HDI to set up and
OUR LAND, OUR LAW, OUR PEOPLE, OUR FUTURE
Six Nations of the Grand River Territory o Suite 417 - 16 Sunrise Court P0. Box 714 ° Ohsweken, Ontario NOA 1M0
Telephone 519.445.4222 Facsimile 519.445.2389 hdi2@be11net.ca

clarify the nature of what will be impacted by the Project and to determine if those
infringements are justified and whether or not they can be accommodated.
I look forward to receipt of your application at which time we can arrange a convenient
time to meet to discuss your Project.
Yours truly
Hazel E. Hill
Interim Director
Attach. — 1
/bm
c.c. J.E. (Ted) O’Neill, Golder Associates
Cindy Batista, Ministry of the Environment
Peter Kryger, Project Manager
2

03/14/2013 11:05 FAX 9056878056 PUBLIC WORKS ADM 002
Niagara t Region
PUBLIC WORKS
WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
2201 St. David’s Road, P.O. Box 1042,
ThoroldON L2V4T7
Tel: 905-685-1571 TIl-free: 1-800-263-7215
Fax: 905-687-8056
www.niagararegion.Ca
March 14, 2013
Ms. Hazel E. Hill
Interim Director
Haudenosaunee Development Institute
Suite 417, 17 Sunrise Court
P.O. Box 714
Ohsweken, ON NOA I MO
Dear Ms. Hill:
Humberstone Landfiji
BY FACSIMILE arid EMAIL
We write further to our November 14, 2O12 meeting and the
proposed expansion of the Humberstone Landfill.
environmental assessment of the
As you know, at the terms of reference stage, consultation with Aboriginal communities and
other interested persons is designed to allow the proponent to identify and consider potential
concerns and issues and to provide Aboriginal communities and interested persons with an
opportunity to receive information about, and have meaningful input into, the develoØment of
such terms. The Haudenosaunee Development Institute has indicated that the Haudenosaunee
have harvesting and potentially other treaty rights that could be impacted by the vertical
expansion of the Landfill. We would like to understand better the scope and nature of these
rights and the nature of any possible infringement in order to be able to assess any concerns
and how they might be addressed.
In this regard, we would like to arrange a further meeting with the Haudenosaunee Development
Institute during the weeks of March 2528 or April 2-5. Representatives from the Niagara
Region1 together with the Region’s counsel, Neal Smitheman and Tracy Pratt of Fasken
Martineau DuMoulin LLP, will be in attendance.
Prior to our last meeting, we delivered draft terms of reference to you. II any new issues have
arisen out of your review of this document, we invite you to raise those at the meeting as well.
May we please hear from you regarding a preferred meeting time by next Tuesday, March 19,
2013.
Yours truly,
Catherine Habermebi,
Acting Director, Waste Management Services
Building Community. ui(ding Lives.

humberstone_review

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to humberstone_review

Similar to humberstone_review (20)

humberstone_review