DOCSLIB.ORG

Monroe County Solid Waste Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LANSING DEii\ RICK SNYDER C. HEIDI GRETHER GOVERNOR DIRECTOR June 1, 2017 Mr. J. Henry Lievens, Chairperson Monroe County Board of Commissioners 125 East Second Street Monroe, Michigan 48161-2197 Dear Mr. Lievens: The locally approved amendment to the Monroe County Solid Waste Management Plan (Plan Amendment) received by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on February 18, 2016, is hereby approved with modifications. The Plan Amendment required modifications that were sent to the Monroe County Designated Planning Agency contact, Mr. Daniel Rock1 on December 1, 2016, and a follow-up modification letter on February 17, 2017. The approval of the modifications, dated April 21, 2017, was received from the Monroe County Board of Commissioners (BOC). Upon approval by the DEQ, the Plan Amendment revises the entire Plan and should be viewed as a stand-alone document. The following modifications were made to the Plan Amendment: Throughout the Plan Amendment, the phrase "Mixed Waste Processing" has been used; however, this term is not defined. Based on our conversations, Monroe County is actually referring to a Solid Waste Processing Facility. Therefore, the term "Mixed Waste Processing Facility" throughout the Plan Amendment shall be replaced with the ,, term "Solid Waste Processing Facility. Page 10, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Arbor Hills Landfill, the Operating Status check box for "Construction Permit" shall be marked as this facility has a construction permit. This same item shall be changed on page 47 of the Plan Amendment. Page 16, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Adrian Landfill, Inc., the Operating Status check box for "Open, but closure pending" shall be marked instead of "Open" as this is the current status of this facility. This same item shall be changed on page 52 of the Plan Amendment. Page 17, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Sauk Trail Hills Landfill, the Operating Status check box for "Closed" shall not be marked and the "Open" check box shall be marked instead as this facility is active and accepting solid waste for disposal. This same item shall be changed on page 53 of the Plan Amendment. Mr. J. Henry Lievens 2 June 1, 2017 Page 19, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, DTE Monroe Power Plant Ash Basin, the Operating Status check box for "Construction Permit" shall be marked as this facility has a construction permit. This same item shall be changed on page 55 of the Plan Amendment. Page 20, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Consumers Energy- J.R. Whiting Plant, the Operating Status check box for "Construction Permit" shall be marked as this facility has a construction permit. This same item shall be changed on page 56 of the Plan Amendment. Page 23, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Riverview Land Preserve, the Operating Status check box for "Construction Permit" shall be marked as this facility has a construction permit. This same item shall be changed on page 59 of the Plan Amendment. Page 27, FACILITY DESCRIPTION, Stevens Disposal & Recycling Service, Inc., the Operating Status check box for "Construction Permit" shall be marked as this facility has a construction permit. This same item shall be changed on page 63 of the Plan Amendment. Page 44, EXPORT AUTHORIZATION, the paragraph indicated by a double asterisk"**", last sentence states, "Additional facilities located within the counties listed above shall be allowed to accept waste generated from Monroe County if an Agreement [Monroe County Solid Waste Disposal Facility Acknowledgement, Consent and Agreement] is signed between Monroe County and the facility." Please note that these Agreements were recently forwarded and are enclosed with this letter (Appendix A) and shall be included in the Plan. Therefore, only these counties that have a signed Agreement that are included in the Plan Amendment are authorized to receive waste from Monroe County as found in Appendix A. Page 45, EXPORT AUTHORIZATION, the paragraph indicated by a triple asterisk"***", the paragraph states, ''Total Type Ill waste is unlimited when exported for disposal into a Type Ill facility. Conditional upon a signed Agreement between the accepting solid waste disposal facility and Monroe County." It shall be noted that Monroe County does not have a signed Agreement with any Type Ill facility located in either of these counties; therefore, while they are identified as a primary disposal county they are not authorized for waste disposal until an Agreement is signed and forwardedto the DEQ. Page 46, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS, Designated Solid Waste Disposal Areas Not In Monroe County. second sentence states, "Other disposal area facilities such as transfer stations or processing plants are also utilized upon a signed Agreement." Based upon our discussions it was Monroe County's intent to allow Type B transfer stations to be used without entering into an Agreement. Therefore, this sentence shall be changed to the following: Other disposal area facilities such as Type A transfer stations or processing plants are also able to be utilized upon execution of a signed Agreement. Type B transfer stations listed may be utilized without execution of a signed Agreement. Mr. J. Henry Lievens 3 June 1, 2017 Page 46, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS, the inventory of existing disposal areas, Transfer Stations and Waste Processing Plants subsections, includes the Republic Services of Toledo - Erie Transfer Station; however, this facility does not exist at this time. Therefore, it shall be deleted from each of these subsections as well as the facility description pages found on pages 25 and 61 of the Plan Amendment. Page 87, SELECTED SYSTEM, SITING REVIEW PROCEDURES, Unauthorized Disposal Area Types, first bulleted item, identifies "Non-selected Waste Systems" as a facility type that is deemed inconsistent with the Plan. However, this is not a disposal area type identified in Part 115, Solid Waste Management, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 1994 PA 451, as amended (Part115). Based upon further review of the Plan Amendment, Monroe County provided clarification of this terminology as specifically referring to municipal solid waste incinerators and waste-to­ energy facilities as described in Appendix B. Therefore, the phrase "Non-selected Waste Systems" shall be changed to Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators and Waste-to­ Energy facilities (Described in Appendix B). Page 88, SELECTED SYSTEM, SITING REVIEW PROCEDURES, Authorized Disposal Area Types, second paragraph states, "Disposal areas at specific sites are identified on pages 86-88, and list according to the type of disposal area activity that is authorized by this Plan." However, these page numbers are incorrect. Therefore, the correct page numbers of 89-92 shall be identified instead. Further, the phrase, "activity that is authorized by this Plan" needs further clarification. Based upon our conversation, Monroe County intended this to mean the types of disposal facilities that are authorized to follow the siting process. Based upon the items discussed above, this paragraph shall be changed to the following: Disposal areas at specific sites are identified on pages 89-92 and are listed according to the types of disposal facilities that are authorized by this Plan to be sited following the siting process. Page 88, SELECTED SYSTEM, SITING REVIEW PROCEDURES, Authorized Disposal Area Types, fourth paragraph discusses the need for a facility to have sponsorship of the county or municipality of which is resides. However, based upon our conversations it was determined that Monroe County did not intend to require sponsorship of a facility and that it was a remnant of the previous Plan. Therefore, this paragraph and any reference to a "sponsored" facility shall be deleted from the Plan. Page 88, SELECTED SYSTEM, SITING REVIEW PROCEDURES, Authorized Disposal Area Types, fifth paragraph states, "Facilities regulated under Part 115 include commercial operations that only dispose of waste that is generated on site. Such proposed commercial operations are consistent with the Plan and are not subject to the siting process." This paragraph is unclear as written and a definable term should be used to provide clarification. Based upon our conversation, it was the intention of Monroe County to allow for the siting of "captive facilities" without the need for them to follow the siting process. Per Section 11525a(5), "captive facility" means a landfill that accepts for disposal only nonhazardous industrial waste generated only by the owner of Mr. J. Henry Lievens 4 June 1, 2017 the landfill or a nonhazardous industrial waste landfill as that is described in Section 11525(3). Therefore, this paragraph shall be changed to the following: Captive facilities as defined in Part 115 are not subject to the siting process and are deemed automatically consistent with the Plan. Pages 88-89, SELECTED SYSTEM, SITING REVIEW PROCEDURES, Authorized Disposal Area Types, Exemptions section, the purpose of this section is unclear and there were many modifications needed to provide clarity. Based upon our conversations it was determined that it would be best to delete this section in its entirety. Therefore, the Exemptions section shall be deleted from the Plan Amendment. Page 89 under the, SELECTED SYSTEM, FACILITIES INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN: It was the intent of Monroe County to deem the proposed Erie Transfer Station, located at 6749 South Dixie Highway, Erie, Michigan 48133 and identified in Attachment B - Maps, as the Erie Services of Toledo site map parcel "Future transfer station
Recommended publications
  • Washtenaw County Solid Waste Plan Amendment – Approved Draft

    Washtenaw County Solid Waste Plan Amendment – Approved Draft

    WASHTENAW COUNTY SOLID WASTE PLAN AMENDMENT – APPROVED DRAFT APPROVED DRAFT FOR 90-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AS OF APRIL 21, 2017 COMPILED DRAFT PREPARED BY RESOURCE RECYCLING SYSTEMS SUBMIT COMMENTS TO: [email protected] THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK How to Read this Document This draft Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment follows the format that is required by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) through enactment of Part 115, Solid Waste Management, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (Act 451). Much of the current solid waste law is focused on ensuring proper and adequate disposal capacity. However, the Washtenaw County Solid Waste Planning Committee embraced the environmental mindset that is prevalent in the community and strived to set goals and objectives to focus on reduction, reuse, and recycling. Required Sections The plan consists of three primary sections with appendices to provide supporting documents and materials, as required by the state. The three sections are: Introduction: describes the goals and objectives of the plan. Database: consists of background information to support the development and implementation of the plan. Selected Solid Waste Management System: describes the comprehensive approach to managing the County’s solid waste and recoverable materials. The appendices provide supporting documents and materials. Appendix A contains additional detail about the evaluation of current systems. Appendix B contains additional evaluation of alternatives not selected by the County. Appendix C contains documentation of public participation. Please note that this section will be completed prior to final submission to the MDEQ, as public participation is actively occurring.
  • Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update

    Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update

    Lucas County Solid Waste Management 2010 Plan Update Due to OEPA September 16, 2011 Lucas County Commissioners Pete Gerken, President Tina Skeldon Wozniak Carol Contrada Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6 A. Plan Approval Date, Counties In District and Planning Period ......................................................................... 6 B. Reasons for Plan Submittal ............................................................................................................................... 6 C. Process to Determine Material Change in Circumstances ............................................................................... 6 D. District Formation and Certification Statement ............................................................................................... 8 E. Policy Committee Members ............................................................................................................................. 9 F. Board of County Commissioners ...................................................................................................................... 9 G. District Contact Information ............................................................................................................................. 9 H. Technical Advisory Committee and Other Subcommittees ............................................................................ 10 Section 2: Executive Summary ............................................................................................
  • Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: the Canadian Context

    Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: the Canadian Context

    Cov-Public Confidence Canadian 30/09/03 12:45 Page 1 Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY Radioactive Waste Management Public Confidence in the Management of Radioactive Waste: The Canadian Context Workshop Proceedings Ottawa, Canada 14-18 October 2002 © OECD 2003 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000).
  • Year Ended December 31, 2014 Prepared By: Monroe County Finance Department

    Year Ended December 31, 2014 Prepared By: Monroe County Finance Department

    COUNTY OF MONROE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014 Prepared By: Monroe County Finance Department ON THE COVER: Top row: Collage by Monroe County Staff Second row (left to right): “Follow the River” by Rita Diederichs Monroe County Courthouse by Monroe County staff Farm Picture provided by Monroe Soil Conservation District Third row (left to right): Monroe County Fair by Bill Saul War Memorial and La-Z-Boy Center by Monroe County staff Fourth row (left to right): Fermi II Power Plant provided by Detroit Edison Tenneco and River by Monroe County staff Cover compiled and designed by Kim Farver and Meagan Russell County of Monroe, Michigan Year Ended Comprehensive December 31, Annual Financial 2014 Report Prepared by: Monroe County Finance Department This page intentionally left blank. COUNTY OF MONROE, MICHIGAN Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY SECTION EXHIBIT PAGE Letter of Transmittal 1 GFOA Certificate of Achievement 9 Organizational Chart 10 List of Principal Officials 11 FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors' Report 15 Management's Discussion and Analysis 20 Basic Financial Statements: Government-wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Position A 31 Statement of Activities B 32 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet - Governmental Funds C-1 34 Reconciliation - Fund Balances for Governmental Funds to Net Position of Governmental Activities C-2 37 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental Funds C-3 38 Reconciliation - Net Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental
  • Statement of Claim, As Required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act

    Statement of Claim, As Required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act

    Archived Content Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us. Contenu archivé L'information archivée sur le Web est disponible à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de dossiers seulement. Elle n’a été ni modifiée ni mise à jour depuis sa date d’archivage. Les pages archivées sur le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez obtenir cette information dans un format de rechange en communiquant avec nous. UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES AND SECTION B OF CHAPTER Ii OF TIlE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN: VITO G. GALLO Investor v GOVERNMENT OF CANADA (“Canada”) Party STATEMENT OF CLAIM A. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES CLAIMANT! INVESTOR: Vito G. GallooAc) ENTERPRISE: 1532382 Ontario Inc. 225 Duncan Mill Road Suite 101 Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3K9 Canada PARTY: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada Justice Building 239 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0H8 Canada 1. The Investor alleges that the Government of Canada has breached, and continues to breach, its obligations under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA, including, but not limited to: (i) Article 1105, The Minimum Standard of Treatment (ii) Article 111 0, Expropriation and Compensation 2.
  • Report on Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan for 1996

    Report on Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan for 1996

    REPORT OF SOLID WASTE LANDFILLED IN MICHIGAN October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020 Prepared By: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Materials Management Division Solid Waste Section P.O. Box 30241 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7741 517-388-0293 February 11, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 WASTE DISPOSAL SUMMARY INFORMATION ........................................................... 2 TABLE 1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS .................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2 SOLID WASTE DISPOSED IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS BY PERCENTAGE ................................................... 4 FIGURE 1 OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................ 5 FIGURE 2 MICHIGAN AND OUT-OF-STATE WASTE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DISPOSAL IN MICHIGAN LANDFILLS ............................................................... 5 TABLE 3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY ....................... 6 TABLE 3A INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SOURCE SUMMARY……. ..... 7 WASTE IMPORTS ..................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 4 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 8 FIGURE 3 IMPORTED WASTE BY ORIGIN ................................................. 9 TABLE 5 IMPORTED WASTE BY COUNTY AND PLACE OF ORIGIN ..........................................................
  • Selected Solid Waste Management System

    Selected Solid Waste Management System

    III-4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS Designated Solid Waste Disposal Areas in Oakland County – revised table – November 2013 Type II Landfill: Type A Transfer Facility: Collier Road Landfill Allied Waste Transfer Station – Southfield Eagle Valley Landfill Allied Waste Site – Pontiac Oakland Heights Landfill SOCRRA Transfer Station – Troy SOCRRA Landfill SOCRRA Transfer Station – Madison Heights City of Pontiac Site – Pontiac Waste Management Site – Pontiac Type III Landfill: FPT – Pontiac Division – Pontiac None Designated BP – Pontiac Processing Facility: SOCRRA MRF Site – Troy Incinerator: RRRASOC MRF Site – Southfield None Designated Allied Waste Site – Pontiac City of Pontiac Site – Pontiac Waste Management Site – Pontiac Waste-to-Energy Incinerator: FPT – Pontiac Division – Pontiac None Designated BP – Pontiac Other: Waste Piles: None Designated None Designated III-12 SELECTED SYSTEM FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Facility Type: Waste Transfer Facility Name: BP-Pontiac County: Oakland Location: City of Pontiac Town: 3N Range: 10E Section(s) 17 and 20 Map Identifying location included in Attachment Section: ___X____ Yes _______ No If facility is an Incinerator or a Transfer Station, list the final disposal site and location for Incinerator ash or Transfer Station wastes: see list on reverse side Operating Status (check) Waste Types Received (check all that apply) ______ open __X___ residential ______ closed __X___ commercial ______ licensed __X___ industrial ______ unlicensed __X___ construction & demolition ______ construction permit __X___ contaminated
  • Download 3697.Pdf

    Download 3697.Pdf

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ) STATE OF OHIO; ) STATE OF ARIZONA; ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ) STATE OF COLORADO; ) STATE OF FLORIDA; ) COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; ) STATE OF MARYLAND; ) STATE OF MICHIGAN; ) STATE OF NEW YORK; ) Civil No.: 1:98 CV 1616 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ) STATE OF TEXAS; ) STATE OF WASHINGTON; and ) STATE OF WISCONSIN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Filed: ) v. ) ) USA WASTE SERVICES, INC.; ) DOME MERGER SUBSIDIARY; and ) WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT WHEREAS, plaintiffs, the United States of America, the State of Ohio, the State of Arizona, the State of California, the State of Colorado, the State of Florida, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Maryland, the State of Michigan, the State of New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of Texas, the State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin, and defendants USA Waste Services, Inc. ("USA Waste") and Waste Management, Inc. (“WMI”), by their respective attorneys, having consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or an admission by any party with respect to any issue of law or fact herein; AND WHEREAS, defendants have agreed to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court; AND WHEREAS, the essence
  • The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-To-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It

    The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-To-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It

    C LI E: UB R P WA BE The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-to-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs B L I C P U RE: BEWA The DANGER of Corporate Landfill Gas-to-Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs A report by: Recycling Works! Campaign www.recyclingworkscampaign.org Sierra Club www.sierraclub.org International Brotherhood of Teamsters www.teamster.org Public Beware: The Danger of Corporate Landfill Gas to Energy Schemes and How to Fix It Why Organics Recycling is an Alternative That Prevents Greenhouse Gases and Creates Jobs Introduction The United States is at a turning point, both economically and environmentally, and the policy choices we make in the near future will have a long-term impact on protecting our climate and reviving our economy. While the planet approaches a climate change tipping point, after which severe damages from global warming will be irreversible, millions of Americans are seeking quality employment. Clean energy solutions are available to both of these problems, but corporate landfill owners’ narrow self-interests can stand in the way of the public good and the de - votion of resources to the most effective solutions. While major waste companies promote landfill gas to energy (LFGTE) projects that purport to capture methane released from landfills and convert it to elec - tricity, a better solution lies in organics recycling. As part of a 21st century re - source recovery infrastructure, organics recycling diverts methane-generating waste from landfills and has the potential to significantly curtail dangerous land - fill methane emissions in the near term and going forward, create quality em - ployment in the organics recycling and clean energy industries—allowing a truly sustainable and renewable source of energy to thrive.
  • NOTICE of MOTION Contract with Republic Services

    NOTICE of MOTION Contract with Republic Services

    J(24) NOTICE OF MOTION Contract with Republic Services of Canada Inc. Moved by: Councillor Duguid Seconded by: Councillor Pitfield “WHEREAS City Council at its meeting held on November 26, 27 and 28, 2002, adopted, as amended, Clause No. 29 of Report No. 12 of The Works Committee, headed ‘Haulage and Disposal of Wastewater System By-Products - Request for Proposals No. 9155-02-7307’, and, in so doing, granted the authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Republic Services of Canada, Inc., to provide the required haulage and disposal services for wastewater system by-products for the City of Toronto commencing January 1, 2003; and WHEREAS the disposal of the wastewater system by-products will take place at the Carleton Farms landfill in the United States or other licensed and permitted solid waste disposal facilities, and it is in the interest of the City that the agreement be modelled on the City’s Waste Transport and Disposal Agreement, dated October 25, 2000, in relation to the disposal of the City’s solid waste, including the addition of parties; and WHEREAS there are no financial impacts associated with this Motion; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with §27-49 of Chapter 27 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Clause No. 29 of Report No. 12 of The Works Committee, headed ‘Haulage and Disposal of Wastewater System By-Products - Request for Proposals No. 9155-02-7307’, be re-opened for further consideration; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council consider the attached report dated April 14, 2003, from
  • Water Trail Master Plan

    Water Trail Master Plan

    Monroe County Water Trail Master Plan July 2014 Monroe County Water Trail Master Plan This Plan was prepared by Monroe County and LIAA. This Plan was funded in part by the Michigan Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Environmental Quality Office of the Great Lakes and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Regional Context 1 Watersheds Rivers, Streams Creeks and Lakes What is a Water Trail? 4 Water Trails - a Regional & State Perspective 5 Water Trail Planning in the Region Blueways of St. Clair Huron River Water Trail Detroit Heritage River Water Trail Clinton River & St. Clair Coastal Water Trail Water Trail Planning in Michigan Local Initiatives 6 River Raisin Heritage Corridor-East Best Practices 54 Master Plan Access Sites Site Location Appropriateness Summary of the Planning Process 9 Cost Considerations Community Input Environmental Friendly Launch Considerations Gear and Equipment Water Trail Inventory 11 Safety Emergency Assistance Obstacles and Safety Concerns 51 Obstacles Weather and Lake Conditions Leveraging Trails for Economic Development 61 Shipping and Boating Traffic International Waters Facilities and Infrastructure Strategies 63 River and Paddling Etiquette 52 River Etiquette Leave No Trace Next Steps Private Property 66 Monroe County Water Trail Master Plan Introduction Water trails are swiftly becoming a signature feature of outdoor recreation in southeast Michigan. A series of water trails in Monroe County offer very different, but no less picturesque paddling experiences. Veteran kayakers have been paddling the western stretches of the River Raisin for many years, but use of the entire river has not been fully developed for the broader population.
  • Protect Michigan's Water from Toxic Power Plant Pollution

    Protect Michigan's Water from Toxic Power Plant Pollution

    Summer Update 2013 Michigan currents protect michigan’s water from toxic power plant pollution Power plants still have virtually unlimited permits to pol- lute rivers lakes and streams. Toxic discharge standards have not been updated since 1982, and power plants’ toxic dumping into the nation’s waterways now totals billions of pounds per day. Clean Water Action is mobilizing its members to sup- port the strongest possible standards to curb this toxic pollution. EPA is poised to issue new rules but public sup- port is critical since Dirty Coal and the big electric utili- ties they supply threaten to weaken any new protections. In Michigan, where this toxic pollution directly threatens the Great Lakes, Clean Water Action staff and volunteers are organizing to submit 10,000 public comments that will become part of EPA’s official decision record. Michigan has 21 active coal-fired power plants, including 13 that have no discharge limits on arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxic metals. EPA’s proposed water pollution standards for power plants, first unveiled this spring would limit the amount of toxic metals that River Rouge power plant. can be dumped into rivers, lakes, and streams. Detroit Edison’s Monroe power plant illustrates the seriousness of the treat to Michigan’s water. Located south of Detroit, on Lake Erie the plant was had no limits on its toxic dumping until 2010. The state eventually required monitor- ing and reductions in the plant’s mercury pollution, but other toxic metals and still not even monitored. The plant is still allowed to dump 57.5 million gallons per day of toxic wastewater directly into Lake Erie.