F2. Draft Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Net Effects Analysis & Comparative Evaluation Report

F2. Draft Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Net Effects Analysis & Comparative Evaluation Report

Clean Harbors Canada Inc. Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Draft Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Net Effects Analysis & Comparative Evaluation Report Prepared By: AECOM 410 250 York Street, Citi Plaza London, ON, Canada N6A 6K2 Tel 519 673 0510 Fax 519 673 5975 www.aecom.com JANUARY, 2014

Executive Summary Two expansion alternatives were identified in the approved Terms of Reference (ToR) and developed to a preliminary conceptual design level. Alternative 1 Vertical Expansion On-Site would involve the vertical expansion of the existing landfill site (i.e., expansion would take place over the previously approved and landfilled areas of the site) (see Figure 1). Alternative 2 Shallow Entombment Off-Site would involve the expansion of the site to the south of the existing landfill on adjacent lands already owned by Clean Harbors (see Figure 2). Conceptual designs for these two Alternatives have been further refined in the Conceptual Design Report (CDR), which was made available during the EA to St. Clair Township and the appropriate review agencies, First Nations, Métis organizations, and the public for their review and comment. This report utilizes the findings of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report and the CDR to conduct net effects analyses for the two alternatives proposed for the Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion, in accordance with the methodology outlined in the approved ToR. This report also details the comparative evaluation of the two proposed Alternatives with respect to archaeological and cultural heritage resources based on the results of the net effects analysis. There is no preferred alternative in relation to known archaeological resources or in relation to the presence of archaeological potential. There are no known archaeological resources in the Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 Study Area. With regard to archaeological potential, with the exception of the area located in the southeast corner, archaeological potential has been removed through disturbance associated with the operating landfill throughout the Alternative 1 Study Area. Whereas, the Alternative 2 Study Area is considered undisturbed, and as such, areas retaining archaeological potential are present for the entire Study Area. A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment must be conducted on all land which may be disturbed from proposed construction and operation activities to confirm potential impacts to archaeological resources prior to any land disturbance, in accordance with MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. There is no preferred alternative in relation to the presence of archaeological potential. There are no preferred alternatives with regards to cultural heritage resources. Above ground cultural heritage resources are present with both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, the pioneer cemetery and Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape, respectively. There will be no impacts to cultural heritage resources with Alternative 1, and impacts to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape by Alternative 2 are not determined to be significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and given that this cultural heritage roadscape is not considered a unique resource as it is typical in this part of the County. The results of both the net effects analyses and the comparative evaluation for Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources will be presented to St. Clair Township, review agencies, First Nations, Métis organizations, and the public for their review and comment prior to conducting the full comparative evaluation of the two Alternatives and identifying a Preferred Alternative. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx

Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. Introduction... 1 2. Net Effects Analysis Methodology... 4 2.1 Evaluation Criteria & Indicators... 4 2.1 Key Design Considerations & Assumptions... 5 2.2 Future Baseline Conditions & Assumptions... 7 2.3 Maximum Impact / Worst-Case Scenario... 7 3. Net Effects Analysis Results... 7 3.1 Alternative 1... 7 3.2 Alternative 2... 8 3.3 Extended Site Life... 11 4. Comparative Evaluation Methodology... 11 5. Comparative Evaluation Results... 11 6. References... 13 List of Figures Figure 1. Alternative 1... 2 Figure 2. Alternative 2... 3 Figure 3. Areas with Archaeological Potential and Identified Cultural Heritage Resources and Landscapes... 6 List of Tables Table 1. Assessment Criteria, Rationale, Indicators and Data Sources... 4 Table 2. Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis... 9 Table 3. Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis... 10 Table 4. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Comparative Evaluation Results... 12 Appendices Appendix A Glossary of Terms 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx

1. Introduction Investigative studies of the following environmental components were carried out as part of the Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion Environment Assessment (EA) for the purpose of generating a more detailed description and understanding of the existing environment that may potentially be affected by the proposed undertaking: Agriculture Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Atmospheric Environment Geology and Hydrogeology Natural Environment Socio-Economic Surface Water Technical These reports were made available during the EA to St. Clair Township and the appropriate review agencies, First Nations, Métis organizations, and the public for their review and comment. Two expansion alternatives were identified in the approved Terms of Reference (ToR) and developed to a preliminary conceptual design level. Alternative 1 Vertical Expansion On-Site would involve the vertical expansion of the existing landfill site (i.e., expansion would take place over the previously approved and landfilled areas of the site) (see Figure 1). Alternative 2 Shallow Entombment Off-Site would involve the expansion of the site to the south of the existing landfill on adjacent lands already owned by Clean Harbors (see Figure 2). Conceptual designs for these two Alternatives have been further refined in the Conceptual Design Report (CDR), which was made available during the EA to St. Clair Township and the appropriate review agencies, First Nations, Métis organizations, and the public for their review and comment. Following the characterization of the existing environment and further development of the two alternative landfill designs in the CDR, the next step in the EA process is to undertake net effects analyses and a comparative evaluation of the two alternative methods in order to, ultimately, identify a Preferred Alternative. This report utilizes the findings of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report (Archaeological Services, Inc. (ASI), 2009a) and the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ASI, 2009b), conditions associated with the currently approved landfill at closure, and the CDR to conduct net effects analyses for the two alternatives proposed for the Clean Harbors Lambton Landfill Expansion, in accordance with the methodology outlined in the approved ToR. This report also details the comparative evaluation of the two proposed Alternatives with respect to archaeological and cultural heritage resources based on the results of the net effects analyses. The results of both the net effects analyses and the comparative evaluation for Archaeological and Cultural Heritage will be presented to St. Clair Township, review agencies, First Nations, Métis organizations, and the public for their review and comment prior to conducting the full comparative evaluation of the two Alternatives and identifying a Preferred Alternative. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 1 -

205.0 205.0 213.0 213.0 0 00.0 205.0 205.0 215.0 214.0 213.0 216.0 217.0 218.0 219.0 219.0 218.0 217.0 216.0 215.0 215.5 214.0 213.0 212.5 214.0 215.0 215.0 215.0 216.0 214.0 205.0 213.0 205.0 198.5 198.5 198.5 198.5 198.5 198.5 215.0 199.5 205.0 199.5 199.5 213.0.5 198.5 198.5.0 199.5 199.5 198.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 199.5 205.0 204.5 205.5 204.5 204.5 TRAILERS CEMETERY PETROLIA LINE TELFER ROAD SURFACE WATER POND SURFACE WATER POND SURFACE WATER BUILDING LEGEND GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARY CURRENT WASTE DISPOSAL LIMIT FENCE PROPOSED BASE CONTOURS PROCESS WATER PROPOSED SURFACE WATER DITCH/POND ALIGNMENT SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTION CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL EXPANSION FOOTPRINT EXISTING/PROPOSED SCREENING BERM Lambton Landfill Expansion Alternative Method 1 December 2013 Clean Harbors Canada Inc 44985-08(021)GN-WA001 DEC 23/2013 Project 044985 Figure 1 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 N E W S

196.0 S15 EASTING 393,717.859 NORTHING 4,747,574.582 6,380 sq.m EASTING 394,136.006 NORTHING 4,747,557.632 WETLAND WOODLOT CULVERT FOR WOODLOT DRAINAGE WOODLOT 200 206 200 153 m 200 206 200 LIMIT OF WASTE 196.0 194.0 PERIMETER ACCESS ROAD 10 m BUFFER FROM PROPERTY LINE TELFER ROAD PROPERTY LINE DRAINAGE DITCH SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE DITCH SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ROKEBY LINE LEGEND GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR SURFACE WATER 197 DRAINAGE DITCH PROPERTY BOUNDARY TREE N FENCE CONCEPTUAL LANDFILL EXPANSION FOOTPRINT CURRENT WASTE W E DISPOSAL LIMIT EXISTING/PROPOSED WOODED AREA SCREENING BERM S 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 Clean Harbors Canada Inc Lambton Landfill Expansion Alternative Method 2 December 2013 Project 044985 Figure 2 44985-08(021)GN-WA002 DEC 23/2013

2. Net Effects Analysis Methodology With the evaluation criteria, indicators, rationale and data sources confirmed in the approved ToR, and the existing conditions characterized and confirmed through the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, a net effects analysis was carried out for each of the alternatives consisting of the following activities: 1. Identify potential effects (based on indicators) on the environment from each alternative in combination with the currently approved landfill considering maximum predicted waste receipt levels (200,000 tonnes of waste per year for approximately 25 years) for the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario: Based on design assumptions included in the CDR Document key design assumptions applicable to archaeology and cultural heritage (including mitigation measures built into the design) Document future assumptions applicable to archaeology and cultural heritage 2. Identify mitigation measures to address potential environmental effects; and Additional mitigation measures beyond those included in the CDR required to further minimize or mitigate identified potential effect(s) associated with the proposed landfill alternatives 3. Identify net environmental effects taking into account mitigation measures. 2.1 Evaluation Criteria & Indicators The approved ToR set out the assessment criteria and indicators for evaluating the alternative methods (i.e. the two alternatives) in the EA. Evaluation criteria were developed for each environmental component listed in the previous section. The criteria and indicators listed in Table 1 were used in the net effects analysis and comparative evaluation for Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources. Table 1. Assessment Criteria, Rationale, Indicators and Data Sources Criteria Rationale Indicators Data Sources ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources are nonrenewables that can be disturbed or destroyed by the construction and operation of a waste disposal facility. Presence of known archaeological resources. Potential effects on archaeological potential. Site record forms for registered sites housed at the MCL; Published and unpublished documentary sources; Determination of archaeological potential per MCL guidelines; Field survey of study area and immediate vicinity to confirm areas of archaeological potential; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; Proposed facility characteristics. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 4 -

Table 1. Assessment Criteria, Rationale, Indicators and Data Sources Criteria Rationale Indicators Data Sources Cultural heritage resources are nonrenewable sites and places that can be disturbed or destroyed by the construction and operation of a waste disposal facility. Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Presence of built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes. Presence of designated (Ontario Heritage Act), commemorated (National Historic Site or historical plaque) inventoried (listed on a municipal heritage register), and identified built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in the site vicinity. Potential effects on above ground cultural heritage resources. Effects can include direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts can include displacement through removal, while indirect impacts can include disturbance through the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the surrounding setting. Archival documents contained within the local and provincial repositories; Historic mapping; Contact local municipality and heritage/historical society stakeholders; Site analysis and survey of cultural heritage resources located within the study area and in the immediate vicinity; Applicable municipal heritage inventory/register; Relevant background studies that have surveyed cultural heritage resources; Landfill expansion alternatives concepts; Proposed facility characteristics. 2.1 Key Design Considerations & Assumptions Key design considerations pertaining to archaeological and cultural heritage resources include any construction or operation activities which could affect the areas with archaeological potential or areas with cultural heritage resources. For Alternative 1, the majority of land is already disturbed with the exception of a small area (approximately 6 ha) in the southeast corner which may contain archaeological resources and retains archaeological potential. With regard to cultural heritage resources, the existing entrance to the site will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. For Alternative 2, the entire landfill footprint may contain archaeological resources and retains archaeological potential, as depicted on Figure 3. With regard to cultural heritage resources, the existing entrance to the site located in the Alternative 1 Study will continue to be used with no alteration to the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. Unlike Alternative 1, Alternative 2 requires the construction of a new earth berm around the site perimeter and as such, will have a direct effect on the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape. Although Telfer Road has been identified as a cultural heritage roadscape due to its narrow right-of-way and shoulders evocative of 19 th century origins (ASI, 2009a) it is not considered a unique resource and is typical in this part of the County. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 5 -

TELFER ROAD ROKEBY LINE Legend Area Retaining Archaeological Potential Clean Harbors Canada Inc ² ¹ Cultural Heritage Landscape, Telfer Rd Cultural Heritage Resource, Telfer Rd Pioneer Cemetery Cultural Resourses and Archaeological Potential December 2013 Project 60272902 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Metres Figure 3

2.2 Future Baseline Conditions & Assumptions In order to predict potential environmental effects resulting from each of the proposed alternative methods, the analysis must consider the Study Area s existing conditions at the time of development of the proposed alternatives. These are referred to as the future conditions. At the future year the currently approved Lambton Landfill will be closed; however, all other on-site waste management activities will continue. As per the Closure Plan described in the Lambton Landfill Design and Operational Report (March 2010), upon closure of the landfill, the landfill cap will be constructed to its final elevation and contours, covered with topsoil and vegetative cover will be established. Access roads, other earthen works (such as berms, drainage ditches and swales, surface water reservoirs, etc.), surface water runoff collection, treatment and discharge, and noise, dust and lighting abatement measures will be maintained as they were during the operational life of the landfill. The Study Area s existing conditions at the time of developing the proposed alternatives will continue to be reflective of the existing condition as they relate to archaeological and cultural heritage resources. As such, the net effects analysis and comparative evaluation were conducted based on the existing conditions as identified in the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ASI, 2009a and ASI, 2009b). 2.3 Maximum Impact / Worst-Case Scenario The ToR states that potential environmental effects will be evaluated considering maximum predicted waste receipt levels. During the period from 2001 to 2010, Clean Harbors landfilled an average of 170,000 tonnes of waste per year. Clean Harbors anticipates that the maximum future waste receipt rate will be comparable to past years and, as such, the net effects analysis considered a conservative maximum predicted waste receipt level of 200,000 tonnes of waste per year for a site life of approximately 25 years. Consideration of the maximum predicted waste receipt levels and the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario does not influence the net effects analysis or comparative evaluation regarding archaeology and cultural heritage resources. Effects on archaeology and cultural heritage resources are assessed based on the location and design of the facility as it is illustrated in the CDR rather than the operation of the facility. 3. Net Effects Analysis Results As previously discussed, the net effects analysis was conducted by documenting potential effects associated with each indicator for the maximum impact stage or worst-case scenario. Mitigation measures were identified to avoid or minimize potential effects and then the net effects were evaluated taking into consideration the application of mitigation measures. The results of this net effects analysis for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are described in the following sections. 3.1 Alternative 1 A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and Cultural Heritage Assessment Report were prepared in 2009 (ASI, 2009a and ASI, 2009b) and submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 7 -

both the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. The results indicate that there are no known archaeological resources in the Alternative 1 Study Area and archaeological potential is present only within a small area (approximately 6 ha) in the southeast corner of the Study Area. As such, there is the potential for loss or disturbance of lands with potential for archaeological resources in the portion of this property proposed for construction and operation activities. A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment must be conducted on all land which may be disturbed from proposed construction and operation activities to confirm potential impacts to archaeological resources prior to any land disturbance, in accordance with MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. One cultural heritage resource is located within the Study Area, the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery. There are no impacts or encroachment anticipated near the pioneer cemetery and as such mitigation measures are not required. Telfer Road, an identified cultural heritage landscape, is located adjacent to Alternative 1 and this cultural heritage landscape also includes part of the land immediately adjacent to and running the length of the road. The Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape, as depicted on Figure 3, extends from just north of the southern limit of the Alternative 1 Study Area to the southern boundary of the Alternative 2 Study Area; no effects on the cultural heritage landscape are anticipated from construction or operation of Alternative 1. There are also no effects to designated, commemorated, inventoried cultural heritage resources as none are present within the Study Area. 3.2 Alternative 2 The results of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment indicate that there are no known archaeological resources in the Alternative 2 Study Area; however, the entire 122.84 ha Study Area retains archaeological potential. As such, there is the potential for loss or disturbance of lands with potential for archaeological resources throughout the entire Alternative 2 Study Area. A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment must be conducted on all land which may be disturbed from proposed construction and operation activities to confirm potential impacts to archaeological resources prior to any land disturbance, in accordance with MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. The Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located adjacent to Alternative 2 and includes part of the land immediately adjacent to and running the length of the road located within the Alternative 2 Study Area. This cultural heritage landscape will be impacted by construction of the earth berm, the removal of vegetation and the resulting visual change. It is recommended that vegetation removal is minimized and that the earth berms are revegetated using historic plant material as much as possible to reduce effects associated with the visual change. Although Telfer Road has been identified as a cultural heritage roadscape due to its narrow right-of-way and shoulders evocative of 19 th century origins, it is not considered a unique resource and is typical in this part of the County as such, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, effects on the Telfer Road roadscape are not considered significant. The Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is considered in the vicinity of Alternative 2; however, no alterations to the cemetery are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended. Finally, there are also no effects to designated, commemorated, inventoried cultural heritage resources as none are present within the Study Area. The results of the net effects analyses for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage for both Alternatives are detailed in Tables 2 and 3. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 8 -

Table 2. Alternative 1 Net Effects Analysis Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Key Design Considerations & Assumptions Future Baseline Considerations & Assumptions Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Archaeological Resources Presence of known archaeological resources. Majority of Alternative 1 Study Area is already disturbed with the exception of a small area (approximately 6 ha) in the southeast corner. assumptions relative to current. No potential effects on known archaeological resources as none are present in the Alternative 1 Study Area. None required. No net effects on known archaeological resources. Potential effects on archaeological potential. Majority of Alternative 1 Study Area is already disturbed with the exception of a small area (approximately 6 ha) in the southeast corner. assumptions relative to current. Potential loss or disturbance of a portion of the property in the southeast corner of the Study Area with archaeological potential. Conduct a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment in the undisturbed areas where disturbance will occur to confirm if any archaeological resources are present. Potential net effects on areas with archaeological potential will be avoided or mitigated through conducting a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Presence of built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes. The existing entrance to the site will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. assumptions relative to current. One cultural heritage resource, Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is located in the Alternative 1 Study Area and one cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road, is located in the south end of the Alternative 1 Study Area and includes land immediately adjacent within the Study Area. None required. One cultural heritage resource, Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is located in the Alternative 1 Study Area and one cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road, is located in the south end of the Alternative 1 Study Area and includes land immediately adjacent within the Study Area. Presence of designated (Ontario Heritage Act), commemorated (National Historic Site or historical plaque) inventoried (listed on a municipal heritage register), and identified built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in the site vicinity. The existing entrance to the site will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. assumptions relative to current. Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located to the west of the Study Area at the south end of the Alternative 1 Study Area and includes land immediately adjacent within the Study Area. There are no designated, commemorate or inventoried cultural heritage resources in the vicinity of the Alternative 1 Study Area. None required. Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located to the west of the Study Area at the south end of the Alternative 1 Study Area and includes land immediately adjacent within the Study Area. Potential effects on above ground cultural heritage resources. Effects can include direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts can include displacement through removal, which indirect impacts can include disturbance through the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the surrounding setting. The existing entrance to the site will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. assumptions relative to current. Potential effects on the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery and the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape are not anticipated as the existing entrance to the site will continue to be used with no resulting direct or indirect effects on the cultural heritage resources. None required. No net effects on cultural heritage resources anticipated as the existing entrance to the site will continue to be used thus avoiding the identified cultural heritage resources. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 9 -

Table 3. Alternative 2 Net Effects Analysis Environmental Component Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Criteria Archaeological Resources Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Indicators Presence of known archaeological resources. Potential effects on archaeological potential. Presence of built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes. Presence of designated (Ontario Heritage Act), commemorated (National Historic Site or historical plaque) inventoried (listed on a municipal heritage register), and identified built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in the site vicinity. Potential effects on above ground cultural heritage resources. Effects can include direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts can include displacement through removal, which indirect impacts can include disturbance through the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the surrounding setting. Key Design Considerations & Assumptions Alternative 2 Study Area (approximately 122.4 ha) is undisturbed. Alternative 2 Study Area (approximately 122.4 ha) is undisturbed. The existing entrance to the site located in the Alternative 1 Study Area will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. Construction of an earth berm around the site perimeter will have a direct effect on the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape. The existing entrance to the site located in the Alternative 1 Study Area will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. Construction of an earth berm around the site perimeter will have a direct effect on the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape. The existing entrance to the site located in the Alternative 1 Study Area will continue to be utilized with no alteration to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape or the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery anticipated. Construction of an earth berm around the site perimeter will have a direct effect on the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape. Future Baseline Considerations & Assumptions assumptions relative to current. assumptions relative to current. assumptions relative to current. assumptions relative to current. assumptions relative to current. Potential Effects Mitigation Measures Net Effects No potential effects on known archaeological resources as none are present in the Alternative 2 Study Area. Potential loss or disturbance of land with archaeological potential throughout the Alternative 2 Study Area. One cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road is located to the immediate west of the Alternative 2 Study Area and includes the adjacent land in the Study Area. One cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road is located to the immediate west of the Alternative 2 Study Area and the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is situated in the vicinity within the Alternative 1 Study Area. Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape will be impacted by construction of the earth berm, the removal of vegetation and the resulting visual change. None required. Conduct a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment in the undisturbed areas where disturbance will occur to confirm if any archaeological resources are present. None required. None required. It is recommended that vegetation removal is minimized and that the earth berms are revegetated using historic plant material as much as possible to reduce effects associated with the visual change. No net effects on known archaeological resources are anticipated. Potential net effects on areas with archaeological potential will be avoided or mitigated through conducting a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment. Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located to the west of the Study Area and includes the adjacent land in the Study Area. One cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road is located to the immediate west of the Alternative 2 Study Area and the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is situated in the vicinity within the Alternative 1 Study Area. Although Telfer Road has been identified as a cultural heritage roadscape due to its narrow right-of-way and shoulders evocative of 19th century origins, it is not considered a unique resource and is typical in this part of the County as such, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, effects on the Telfer Road roadscape are not considered significant. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 10 -

3.3 Extended Site Life It is possible that actual waste volumes received annually at the Lambton Landfill might be lower than the volumes predicted and, if so, that the landfill might operate beyond the 25 year planning period. As such, it is also important to consider the net environmental effects in the context of the landfill lasting beyond 25 years; however, the length of site life has no bearing on archaeological or cultural heritage resources. 4. Comparative Evaluation Methodology The net environmental effects identified and documented in the net effects analysis for a 25 year site life were then utilized in a comparison of the two alternatives to one another at the indicator and criteria level for each discipline. The following two step methodology was applied in order to carry out the comparative evaluation for archaeology and cultural heritage resources: 1. Identify the predicted net effect(s) associated with each alternative for each indicator and assign a preference rating (i.e., Preferred, Not Preferred, No Substantial Difference); and 2. Rate each alternative at the criteria level (i.e., Preferred, Not Preferred, No Substantial Difference) based on the identified preference rating for each indicator and provide a rationale 5. Comparative Evaluation Results No known archaeological resources have been identified in the Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 Study Areas and as such, there is no preferred alternative in relation to known archaeological resources. There is no preferred alternative in relation to known archaeological resources or in relation to the presence of archaeological potential. There are no known archaeological resources in the Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 Study Area. With regard to archaeological potential, with the exception of the area located in the southeast corner, archaeological potential has been removed through disturbance associated with the operating landfill throughout the Alternative 1 Study Area. Whereas, the Alternative 2 Study Area is considered undisturbed, and as such, areas retaining archaeological potential are present for the entire Study Area. A Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment must be conducted on all land which may be disturbed from proposed construction and operation activities to confirm potential impacts to archaeological resources prior to any land disturbance, in accordance with MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. There is no preferred alternative in relation to the presence of archaeological potential. There are no preferred alternatives with regards to cultural heritage resources. Above ground cultural heritage resources are present with both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, the pioneer cemetery and Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape, respectively. There will be no impacts to cultural heritage resources with Alternative 1, and impacts to the Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape by Alternative 2 are not determined to be significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and given that this cultural heritage roadscape is not considered a unique resource as it is typical in this part of the County. The results of the comparative evaluation for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage are provided in Table 4 below. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 11 -

Table 4. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Comparative Evaluation Results Environmental Component Criteria Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Archaeological & Cultural Heritage Archaeological Resources Presence of known archaeological resources. No net effects on known archaeological resources. RATING: No substantial difference No net effects on known archaeological resources. RATING: No substantial difference Potential effects on archaeological potential. Potential net effects on areas with archaeological potential would be avoided or mitigated through conducting a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, in accordance with MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. Potential net effects on areas with archaeological potential would be avoided or mitigated through conducting a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment in accordance with MTCS 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. RATING: No substantial difference RATING: No substantial difference Criteria Rating & Rationale: There is no substantial difference between alternatives with regard to Archaeological Resources. Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources Presence of built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes. No known archaeological resources are present in each of the Study Areas and a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is recommended for both Alternatives prior to any ground disturbance to avoid or mitigate effects on areas with archaeological potential. One cultural heritage resource, Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is located in the Alternative 1 Study Area and one cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road, is located in the south end of the Alternative 1 Study Area and includes land immediately adjacent within the Study Area. One cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road is located to the immediate west of the Alternative 2 Study Area and includes land immediately adjacent within the Study Area. Presence of designated (Ontario Heritage Act), commemorated (National Historic Site or historical plaque) inventoried (listed on a municipal heritage register), and identified built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes in the site vicinity. Potential effects on above ground cultural heritage resources. Effects can include direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts can include displacement through removal, which indirect impacts can include disturbance through the introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the surrounding setting. Criteria Rating & Rationale: RATING: Not preferred Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape is located to the west of the Study Area at the south end of the Alternative 1 Study Area and includes land immediately adjacent within the Study Area. RATING: Preferred No net effects on cultural heritage resources anticipated as the existing entrance to the site will continue to be used thus avoiding the identified cultural heritage resources. RATING: No substantial difference RATING: Preferred One cultural heritage landscape, Telfer Road is located to the immediate west of the Alternative 2 Study Area and the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery is situated in the vicinity within the Alternative 1 Study Area. RATING: Not preferred Although Telfer Road has been identified as a cultural heritage roadscape due to its narrow right-of-way and shoulders evocative of 19 th century origins, it is not considered a unique resource and is typical in this part of the County as such, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, effects on the Telfer Road roadscape are not considered significant. RATING: No substantial difference There is no substantial difference between alternatives with regard to Above Ground Cultural Heritage Resources. Overall Rating & Rationale No effects on the Telfer Road pioneer cemetery are anticipated from either Alternative and effects on Telfer Road cultural heritage landscape from Alternative 2 are not considered significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and given that the landscape is not considered to be a unique cultural heritage resource. Given that there is no substantial difference for each criterion, overall there is no substantial difference between Alternative 1 and 2 in terms of Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources. 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 12 -

6. References Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), 2009a: Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, Clean Harbors Canada Lambton Facility, Lambton County Ontario. Submitted to AECOM, Markham. Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI), 2009b: Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, Clean Harbors Canada Lambton Facility, Lambton County Ontario. Submitted to AECOM, Markham. Lambton Landfill, 2010: Lambton Landfill Design and Operational Report Lambton Facility 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx - 13 -

Appendix A Glossary 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx

Definition of Acronyms Acronym Definition AAR... Acoustic Assessment Reports AM1... Alternative 1 Vertical Expansion On-Site AM2... Alternative 2 Shallow Entombment Off-Site AMSL... Above Mean Sea Level ARIM... Aggregate Resources Inventory Mapping ASI... Archaeological Services Inc. CCME... Canadian Councils of Ministers of the Environment CDR... Conceptual Design Report COSEWIC... Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada COSSARO... Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario CRA... Conestoga-Rovers & Associates dba... decibel EA... Environmental Assessment ECA... Environmental Compliance Approval ESDM... Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling ha... hectare LCS... Leachate Collection System LDR... Land Disposal Restrictions L/s... Litres per second m 3... cubic metres ML/day... Million Litres per day MNR... Ministry of Natural Resources MOE... Ministry of the Environment MPAC... Municipal Property Assessment Corporation MTCS... Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport NAP... Noise Abatement Plan PCBs... Polychlorinated Biphenyls POI... Point-Of-Impingement POR... Point-Of-Reception RWDI... Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin Inc. SAR... Species at Risk SWH... Significant Wildlife Habitat SWTP... Surface Water Treatment Plant TDU... Thermal Desorption Unit ToR... Terms of Reference VOCs... Volatile Organic Compounds 08ra_2014-01-03_Net Effects Analysis_Arch CH_Final_60297437.Docx