Notice of approval

Proponent: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Environmental assessment file number: CA-MT-02

Take notice that the period for requiring a hearing, provided for in the Notice of Completion of the Review for the above noted undertaking, expired on September 21, 2000. I received three submissions before the expiration date. No submissions requested a hearing by the Environmental Review Tribunal.

I do not consider it advisable or necessary to hold a hearing. Having considered the purpose of the Act, the Environmental Assessment, the Review and submissions, including an additional five submissions received after September 21, 2000, I hereby give approval to proceed with the undertaking, subject to conditions set out below.

Reasons

My reasons for giving approval are:

  1. On the basis of the proponent’s Environmental Assessment and the Review, the proponent’s conclusion that, on balance, the advantages of this undertaking outweigh its disadvantages, appears to be valid.
  2. No other beneficial alternative method of implementing the undertaking was identified.
  3. On the basis of the proponent’s Environmental Assessment, the Review and the conditions of approval, the construction, operation and maintenance of the undertaking will be consistent with the purpose of the Act (section 2).
  4. The Government Review Team has indicated no outstanding concerns that can not be addressed through conditions of approval or further approvals required under the federal Fisheries Act, the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act, or the provincial Public Lands Act. The public review of the Environmental Assessment did not identify any outstanding concerns which can not be addressed through these conditions of approval or the required approvals.
  5. The submissions received after the Notice of Completion of the Review was published have been adequately dealt with. I am not aware of any outstanding issues with respect to this undertaking which suggest that a hearing should be required.

Conditions

  1. Definitions:
    Director
    means the Director of the EAAB.
    EAA
    means the Environmental Assessment Act.
    EAAB
    means Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch.
    MOE
    means the Ministry of the Environment.
    Proponent
    means the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
  2. The Proponent shall comply with the provisions of the Environmental Assessment (EA) all of which are incorporated herein by reference, except as provided in these conditions or as provided by any other approvals, authorizations or permits required for the undertaking.
  3. The Proponent shall implement the commitments made by the Proponent and recorded in appendices two and three of the Review, labelled as Summary of Public Comments and TRCA's Responses and Summary of Government Agency Comments and TRCA's Responses, except as required to comply with condition 4.0, and except as provided for in these conditions or as provided by other approvals, authorizations or permits required for the undertaking.
  4. The Proponent shall implement its commitments and carry out the work specified in the report Requirements Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act except as may be required by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Fish Habitat Management (DFO-FHM), Environment Canada (EC), or the Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Canadian Coast Guard (DFO-CCG) and the Proponent shall implement any further requirements of DFO-FHM, EC and DFO-CCG and undertakings given to them as a result of further discussions between the Proponent and any of DFO-FHM, EC and DFO-CCG.
  5. These conditions do not prevent more restrictive conditions being imposed under other statutes.
  6. In carrying out the undertaking, the Proponent shall ensure, by appropriate means, including carrying out a sampling, analysis and monitoring procedure developed through further discussions with the Toronto District Office of MOE and agreed to by the Toronto District Office of MOE, that contractors and subcontractors: meet applicable (including environmental) regulatory standards and these conditions; adhere to commitments made in the EA and any supporting documentation in respect of construction, operation and maintenance of the undertaking; and obtain all necessary approvals. This includes ensuring all works comply with:
    1. The TRCA's Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Construction, April 1994.
    2. The MOE's draft Fill Quality Guidelines for Lakefilling in Ontario, December 1997.
    3. The TRCA's Lakefill Quality Control Program (Appendix B) in the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project – Fill Technical Report, July 1998.
  7. Section 8.6 – Amendment Procedure Environmental Assessment is deleted and replaced by conditions 7.1 to 7.17. In Section 8.6, TRCA stated that:

    The following…describes the procedure to be followed to accommodate any modifications to the Concept Plan for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project. The Project will be implemented in two phases over 5 to 10 years as outlined in Chapter 8.2. During the implementation period, we anticipate modifications will be required due to detailed design requirements or a shift in some fish compensation features as we move through the Federal approval process. These modifications may change the details within the Concept Plan but will not alter the main Plan components for the waterfront.

    There are a number of reasons modifications to the Concept Plan may be required. The planned length of time may be exceeded due to several factors. The lakefilling schedule which relies on the availability of fill from construction sites could alter phasing of the Plan. The property acquisition strategy for the project may be delayed as negotiations for the lands are often difficult and time consuming. If funding is not provided at the required levels, the implementation of the Concept Plan will be extended.

    Minor modifications

    1. A minor modification to the Concept Plan and the undertaking is a modification:
      1. where the environmental effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment, taking into account mitigation and remedial actions, and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking, will be equally or more advantageous to the environment than the environmental effects, advantages and disadvantages as described in the EA (as changed by any previous modifications);
      2. which the Proponent determines should not be processed as a significant or major modification;
      3. for which the Proponent is able to obtain the confirmations referred to in condition 7.3; and,
      4. where there is no unresolved written request under condition 7.4 at the time when the decision-making body of the TRCA (which body is referred to below as the Authority) gives the approval referred to in subcondition 7.5 (iv).

      Such modifications may originate from a refinement to the original Concept Plan and the undertaking of the project during the detailed design stage or from later proposed modifications.

    2. Where a minor modification is proposed, the Proponent shall notify, by regular mail, any agency who has a mandate for any matter affected by the proposed minor modification and any property owner whose land is directly abutting the proposed modification.
    3. The Proponent shall obtain written confirmation from every person and agency notified under 7.2 that they do not object to the proposed modification. If the Proponent cannot obtain such confirmation, the Proponent shall follow the process set out in conditions 7.9 to 7.17 for significant or major modifications.
    4. Any person may request the Proponent to process a proposed modification under the process set out for significant or major modification in conditions 7.9 to 7.17. The Proponent and the person making the request may subsequently agree that the modification may proceed as a minor modification. In the event there is not such an agreement, and the person making the request has submitted, prior to the Authority giving the approval referred to in subcondition 7.5 (iv), a request in writing setting out the reasons why the proposal should be processed as a significant or major modification and the proposed modification shall be processed under the procedure set out in conditions 7.9 to 7.17.
    5. Once the Proponent obtains the confirmations required by condition 7.3, the Proponent may, subject to conditions 7.4 and 7.7, proceed with the minor modification provided that the Proponent first ensures that the minor modification:
      1. is presented to the Port Union Working Committee or a successor to it for review and comment, or if the Committee or its successor ceases to exist and function, notice of the minor modification is provided to the community groups previously sitting on the Committee or its successor at least 14 days prior to the consideration by the TRCA's Watershed Management Board meeting referred to in subcondition 7.5 (iii).
      2. has been reviewed by the City of Toronto and comments provided to the TRCA.
      3. is considered by the TRCA's Watershed Management Board (or its successor or, if no successor, the Authority) along with the comments provided under subconditions 7.5 (i) and 7.5 (ii) and any other comments received, at a meeting which allows public participation, and a recommendation made to the Authority.
      4. is approved by the Authority.
    6. The Proponent shall submit a report on the minor modification to the EAAB for inclusion in the Public Record. The report shall include an explanation of the modification; a description of changes that the modification will have to the environmental effects and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking as described in the EA (as changed by any previous modifications); copies of the notices given and the written confirmations received, the Port Union Working Committee and the City of Toronto comments, any other comments received, TRCA reports, and TRCA Watershed Management Committee and Authority meeting minutes including recommendations and approvals; and a description and summary of all the documents for which copies are required.
    7. The Proponent shall not proceed with the minor modification until the report required by 7.6 is submitted to the EAAB for inclusion in the Public Record.

    Significant and major modifications

    1. A significant or major modification to the Concept Plan and the undertaking is a modification which has an influence on the local environment and where the environmental effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment taking into account mitigation and remedial actions, and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking, will be more disadvantageous to the environment than the environmental effects and the advantages and disadvantages as described in the EA (as changed by any previous modifications) or which otherwise does not meet the requirements of condition 7.1 for minor modifications.
    2. Where a significant or major modification is proposed the Proponent shall:
      1. prepare documentation, in consultation, where appropriate, with affected agencies, concerned citizens and interest groups, which documentation shall identify the proposed modification, the reason for the modification; the alternatives, if any, to the modification; proposed mitigation and remedial actions; and a description of changes that the modification, taking into account mitigation and remedial action, will have to the environmental effects and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking as described in the EA (as changed by any previous modifications).
      2. hold a public meeting in the local community.
      3. give notice by regular mail of the proposed significant or major modification and the public meeting to any community group which participates or participated on the Port Union Working Committee or its successor, the EAAB, any other government agency which commented on the EA, or is affected by the modification, persons who submitted comments under subsection 6.4 (2) of the EAA, any property owner whose land is directly abutting the proposed modification, and any other person that the Director of the EAAB requires the Proponent to notify.
      4. give notice of the proposed significant or major modification and the public meeting by advertisement in a newspaper with general circulation in the area of the undertaking; and
      5. include in the notices of the proposed modification and public meeting a statement that anyone may submit to the Proponent, within 30 calendar days of the holding of the public meeting to discuss the proposed modification, a Statement of Concern which must include reasons for the concern and that failure to do so may result in the modification proceeding without further notice.
    3. If no Statement of Concern is received by the Proponent within 30 calendar days of the public meeting, the Proponent may proceed with the significant or major modification provided that the Proponent first ensures the modification:
      1. is presented to the Port Union Working Committee or a successor to it for review and comment, or if the Committee or its successor ceases to exist and function, notice of the modification is provided to the community groups previously sitting on the Committee or its successor at least 14 days prior to the consideration by the TRCA's Watershed Management Board referred to in subcondition 7.10 (iii).
      2. is considered by City of Toronto Council and a resolution supporting the modification is passed by the Council and is forwarded, along with any other documentation deemed relevant, to the TRCA.
      3. is considered by the TRCA's Watershed Management Board (or its successor or, if no successor, the decision-making body of the TRCA, which body is referred to below as the Authority) along with the comments provided under subconditions 7.10 (i) and 7.10 (ii) and any other comments received, at a meeting which allows public participation, and a recommendation made to the Authority.
      4. is approved by the Authority.
    4. If any Statement of Concern is received by the Proponent within 30 calendar days of the public meeting referred to in subcondition 7.9 (ii) the Proponent shall:
      1. provide the EAAB with a copy of any Statement of Concern; and,
      2. attempt to resolve the concerns through alternative dispute resolution such as meetings, negotiation, mediation.
    5. If the Proponent resolves the concerns raised in the Statements of Concern and the concerns are withdrawn and the withdrawal and resolution of the concerns is confirmed in writing by each party which submitted a Statement of Concern, the Proponent can proceed with the proposed significant or major modification, including any changes to that modification arising out of the resolution of any concerns, provided the Proponent first ensures that the steps set out in subconditions 7.10 (i) – (iv) are followed and the approval set out in subcondition 7.10 (iv) is obtained, and provided the following steps are followed, if applicable:
      1. If the change in the modification that facilitated the withdrawal of the Statement of Concern will increase the magnitude of the modification or substantially alter the nature of the modification, the Proponent shall ensure that the steps set out in subconditions 7.9 (i) – (iv) are followed, along with whichever of conditions 7.10 and 7.11 is applicable.
      2. The portion of the documentation providing a description of changes that the modification will have to the environmental effects and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking as described in the EA (as changed by the documentation for any previous modifications) is amended to reflect the change to the modification.
    6. If the Proponent cannot resolve the concerns through alternative dispute resolution and the Proponent considers that an appropriate amount of effort and time has been spent attempting to resolve the concern, the Proponent, if it wishes to proceed with the significant or major modification, shall provide written notice to the party that submitted the Statement of Concern and any other party that the Director may require, that the Proponent intends to proceed with the significant or major modification process by following the steps set out in subconditions 7.10 (i) – (iv) and obtaining the approval set out in subcondition 7.10 (iv). This notice shall outline the procedure for the written request which may be submitted under condition 7.14.
    7. A party which submitted a Statement of Concern who receives or should have received a notice under 7.13 may within 30 days of receipt of such notice make a written request to the Director of the EAAB, with a copy sent to the Proponent, that the Director of the EAAB give notice to the Proponent that it cannot proceed with the significant or major modification unless the Proponent submits a new application for approval under Part II of the EAA and receives approval for the change.
    8. The Proponent, subject to 7.17, may proceed with the proposed significant or major modification if the Director of the EAAB provides a notice that a new EA approval will not be required or if, with in 30 calendar days of receiving the request under condition 7.14 the Director has not provided the notice referred to in that condition.
    9. The Proponent shall submit to the EAAB a report on the significant or major modification for inclusion in the Public Record. The report shall include: a description of: the modification; the public and agency consultation process and the results of that process, including any Statements of Concern; the manner in which concerns were addressed or not and if they were not addressed, the reason for this; the documentation required under subcondition 7.9 (i); copies of the notices given and the written confirmations received, the Port Union Working Committee comments, the City of Toronto Council resolution and any other City documentation deemed relevant, any other comments received including Statements of Concern and withdrawals of Statements of Concern, and TRCA Watershed Management Committee and Authority meeting minutes including recommendations and approvals; and a description and summary of all the documents for which copies are required.
    10. The Proponent shall not proceed with the significant or major modification until the report required by 7.16 is submitted to the EAAB for inclusion in the Public Record.
  8. Before proceeding with the undertaking, TRCA shall provide to the satisfaction of the City of Toronto a statement as to how automobile parking demand anticipated to be generated by the waterfront improvements will be satisfied after each of the Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores and Chesterton Shores to Rouge River implementation phases of the undertaking. This statement shall outline additional parking spaces that have been arranged and are expected to be arranged, the status of existing parking spaces, an assessment as to the sufficiency of this parking , and monitoring planned by TRCA and the City after the two implementation phases of the undertaking are completed to determine if additional parking is required at those times. A copy of the statement is required for the Public Record.
  9. The Proponent shall follow the recommendations of Environment Canada in developing the plan for monitoring the fish habitat to be created in Cell 1 of Tommy Thompson Park, which will be based upon the results of the monitoring of the Triangle Pond wetland creation at Tommy Thompson park, and shall provide Environment Canada with the analyzed results of the Cell 1 monitoring plan at the interval(s) set out in the Cell 1 monitoring plan.
  10. The Proponent shall advise the Director in writing how it has complied with the environmental assessment and these Conditions:
    1. immediately prior to commencing construction of the first phase of the undertaking as outlined in the environmental assessment;
    2. immediately prior to commencing construction of the second phase of the undertaking as outlined in the environmental assessment;
    3. upon completion of the construction of the undertaking; and
    4. upon completion of any other activity required to complete the undertaking.
  11. Where a document is required for the Public Record, it shall be provided by TRCA to the Director of the EAAB for filing with the Public Record maintained for this undertaking. Additional copies of such documents will be provided by the Proponent for public access to:
    • the Director of Central Region of the MOE;
    • the Clerk’s office of the City of Toronto;
    • TRCA's Head Office; and,
    • TRCA's Eastville office.

Dated the 2nd day of May 2001 at Toronto

Original signed by:
Minister of the Environment
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 12th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5