Environmental Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, Subsection 7(1)

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Ministry Review was June 19, 2014. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act (Act).

The Ministry Review documents the Ministry’s evaluation of the Environmental Assessment and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Executive summary

Who

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in conjunction with Waterfront Toronto, and the City of Toronto.

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes:

  • Creation of a floodplain for flood protection including a flood protection landform, valley wall feature and wetlands
  • Naturalization of the Lower Don River including river valley formation and relocated river mouthe
  • Sediment, debris and ice management

When

EA submitted: March 3, 2014
EA submission comment period: March 3 to April 21, 2014

Where

Lands surrounding the Lower Don River and mouthe of the Don River within the waterfront area and in the Lower Don Lands area in the Port Lands of the City of Toronto. Also includes the Don Narrows River Channel from the CN Rail bridge to Riverdale Park.

Why

The proposal is intended to improve ecological function at the Don River mouthe, remove the risk and vulnerability to flooding of 230 hectares of urban land to the south and east of the river, and to address the derelict nature of the Port Lands in the City of Toronto. Improvements will contribute to the revitalization and sustainability of the Toronto waterfront consistent with Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability Framework and objectives and the City of Toronto’s planning for the waterfront.

Conclusions

The Ministry Review of the EA concluded that the proponent has prepared the EA in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference (ToR) and the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). The ministry is satisfied that the proponents (TRCA, Waterfront Toronto, and the City of Toronto) used a clear and logical decision making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was selected from the alternatives considered. Proposed conditions of approval are recommended for the implementation of the undertaking.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into the decision-making process by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the ministry’s evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject to the EAA, approval under the EAA is required before the undertaking can proceed.

Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure the protection, conservation and wise management of the environment. An EA determines, on the basis of the potential environmental effects and benefits, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

Preparing an EA is a two-step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE/ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On August 18, 2006, the Minister approved the Don Mouthe Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project ToR. The ToR sets out how the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in conjunction with Waterfront Toronto, and the City of Toronto (proponents) would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public, government agencies and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the proponents' work plan for assessing and evaluating alternatives including the provision of mitigating environmental effects as part of the EA. This included assessing alternative discharge points for the river mouthe and valley alignments; assessing the river characteristics and identifying the appropriate forms and functions for each alternative and selecting a preferred alternative. The ToR also established the preliminary environmental evaluation criteria and project objectives with which each alternative would be considered. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

1.2 Environmental assessment

Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and carry out the EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has carried out the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and a decision.

On December 17, 2010 the proponents originally submitted the EA to the ministry for a review. The original EA comment period was from December 17, 2010 until February 11, 2011. The EA was then revised on April 8, 2011 and resubmitted to the ministry in response to comments raised.

In September 2011, the City of Toronto Council endorsed a protocol for the revitalization of the Port Lands (known as the Port Lands Acceleration Initiative). This protocol required that the City of Toronto be included as a co-proponent for the project and that certain aspects of the project be re-examined including the costing and economic analysis from the business and implementation plan that was prepared by Waterfront Toronto. The purpose or ultimate goal of the protocol was to determine if the cost of development could be reduced and to develop a phased approach to development which would provide opportunities for surrounding urban redevelopment to fund the required infrastructure including flood protection. As such alternative methods and phasing in the EA were re-examined. The protocol also required that any revisions to the EA be subject to additional public consultation. As a result of this initiative, the proponent requested an extension to the completion of the Ministry Review to undertake this work (February 2011-May 2014).

Following further public consultation efforts and a comprehensive planning and design process, the analysis reconfirmed the fundamental conclusions of the EA however it resulted in a slight realignment of the river and river mouthe into the Inner Harbour to the north, a shift of the overflow greenway to the east adjacent the Don Roadway and no lakefilling in the Inner Harbour to create the promontories at the river mouthe between the two quays. As such, the EA was revised to reflect a new preferred alternative river alignment and various other changes to the project. In addition to other consultation opportunities such as notices, workshops, meetings, and a public information centre, the public and government agencies were given an opportunity to comment on the draft amended EA in December 2013. The amended EA was formally submitted to the ministry for review on March 3, 2014. The public and agency comment period for this EA submission was from March 3 to April 21, 2014.

1.3 Ministry review

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the EA were valid, based on their agencies' mandates. The public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the EA undertaking.

The EAA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and therefore meets the requirements of the EAA and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluates the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects, the proposed mitigation measures and benefits of proceeding. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental effects that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.

A Notice of Completion of the Review was published in July 2014 indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period. Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

Description of the Undertaking

In general, the proposed undertaking (Figure 1 of this Review) was identified in the EA consists of the following:

  • Naturalization of the Lower Don River in the Port Lands area of the waterfront of the City of Toronto including improvements to the Keating Channel and river valley formation and relocation of the river and the river mouthe to the south of the Keating Channel and the creation of approximately 30 hectares of naturalized area/habitat
  • Creation of a floodplain for flood protection including a flood protection landform, valley wall feature, Keating Channel weirs, levee systems and wetlands
  • Creation of new sediment, debris and ice management areas and operations
  • Associated management of soils from excavations and the creation of valley lands including remediation of contaminated soils

The undertaking includes discharge of the low flow river channel to the Inner Harbour between Polson Quay and Cousins Quay south of Keating Channel and two overflow spillways: one through the Keating Channel and the other to the south through the Ship Channel, west of the Don Roadway. The low flow channel south of the Keating Channel is approximately 1745 metres long with its associated valley lands of 100 to 200 metres wide from its upstream to downstream end into Lake Ontario. The inside of the existing Keating Channel will be narrowed with stone revetments to create fish habitat.

The Ship Channel wetland is approximately 190 metres long and will have a valley width of approximately 150 metres.

The lands north of the Keating Channel will be maintained as a fully engineered river channel with a new sediment/debris management area and a flood protection landform on the east side of the river north of Lakeshore Boulevard. On the east side of the river south of Lakeshore Boulevard extending to the Ship Channel there will be a flood protection valley wall feature.

Appendix C of this Review contains more information about the key components of the undertaking. For a detailed and complete description of the undertaking, Chapter 6 of the EA should be consulted.

If EAA approval is granted, the project will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of approval; and will include the details outlined in Chapter 6 of the EA. In addition, the proponents must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Purpose of undertaking

The proposal is intended to improve the ecological function at the Don River mouthe, remove the risk and vulnerability to flooding of approximately 290 hectares of urban land east and north of the river, and to address the derelict nature of the Port Lands in the City of Toronto. Improvements will contribute to the revitalization and sustainability of the Toronto waterfront consistent with Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability Framework and Waterfront Toronto’s objectives and the City of Toronto’s planning for the waterfront.

Benefits from the project will include improving aquatic and terrestrial ecological functions and providing linkages to upstream habitats; creation of natural habitats; accommodating changes in precipitation, water flow and Lake Ontario water levels resulting from climate change; enhancing recreational opportunities, linkages and local aesthetics; and managing contaminated soils clean up.

Adaptive environmental management approach

Chapter 8 of the EA includes compliance and environmental monitoring provisions. This also includes environmental performance monitoring or an adaptive environmental management approach which includes a process to continually improve environmental management practices by using information learned from monitoring to inform or make design refinements where required. It also serves to monitor baseline conditions and will identify any changes to the existing environmental conditions and will ensure that the project functions as intended during construction and operation. Such an approach is needed to provide flexibility for changing environmental conditions and future uses; to adjust sediment management practices in response to unexpected events; to provide a means of maximizing projects benefits and to minimize environmental effects; and to adapt to changes in local weather conditions and long term climate changes.

Land ownership

It is anticipated that the valley lands and sediment management area will be owned and/or managed by TRCA through agreement with the City of Toronto. The Toronto Port Authority (TPA) may retain the dredging and sediment management function or TRCA or the City of Toronto may inherent this responsibility. During detailed design, land ownership and management responsibilities will be specifically defined.

Existing lands directly affected by the proposed undertaking predominately include public lands owned by the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC) (formerly the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO)), the province and the Toronto Port Authority TPA (water lots) which will be displaced by the proposed undertaking.

Private lands will not be displaced however there are some privately held business operations that may be potentially affected by the project (e.g. First Gulf Don Valley Limited (previously the Unilever Canada site); Lafarge Canada Inc.). Impacts to these developments can be managed through mitigation.

Existing and proposed land uses

Existing land uses affected by the undertaking are primarily industrial with a large portion being vacant industrial lands with some industrial and commercial uses; as well as other uses such as recreational, telecommunications, entertainment, internet technology and government service uses. There are no existing residential uses in this area.

Proposed or planned land uses include open space within the river valley; some recreational lands adjacent to the proposed river valley and adjacent mixed use residential, commercial development and industries, recreational and other development in accordance with the City of Toronto’s proposed Central Waterfront Secondary Plan for the waterfront. Lands affected and adjacent to the undertaking are designated as a Special Policy Area using a two zone approach. New valley lands associated with Lower Don River are proposed as park and open space where development is not permitted. Development is allowed elsewhere adjacent the valley system. It is understood that future development surrounding the river valley will be planned through a future Precinct Plan for the Lower Don Lands area and a zoning by-law.

Project implementation

The implementation of the project will occur within a 10 to 20 year timeframe. The project will be constructed in four phases as outlined in the EA. The timing and order of construction will be dependant on land requirements and available funding however the EA indicates that the project will be phased in such a way so that land use redevelopment can occur to match market demand and assist to fund flood protection works.

Other components not part of undertaking

Infrastructure such as bridge crossings for cars and pedestrians and the relocation of utilities, roads and services will be required as a result of the new design for the river and proposed surrounding mixed use residential development and industries. Such changes would mostly be done through the Municipal Class EA process. Specifically, the completed Lower Don Lands EA Master Plan project under the Municipal Class EA provides the basis for realignment of existing infrastructure and the construction of new infrastructure that is compatible with the new location of the naturalized Lower Don River. It is intended that provisions for infrastructure (e.g. bridge footings and underground utility/servicing tunnels, and other types, etc.) will be coordinated with the staged construction of the proposed undertaking.

although not part of undertaking for approval, the proposed design for the Lower Don River will also result in the creation of 13 hectares of public realm and open space areas adjacent but outside of the valley system to be used for passive and active recreational uses. The design also makes provisions for the construction of a trail within the valley lands along the proposed relocated river to provide connections with other existing and proposed trails systems going through this area. There will also be some naturalization and river improvements to the Don Narrows.

Figure 1: Proposed undertaking

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Figure 2: Study area

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

Results of the ministry review

The Review provides the analysis of the EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA planning process and demonstrates how the proponent has selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met.

The ministry is satisfied that the EA followed the framework as set out in the ToR, addressed the commitments made in the ToR and that the requirements of the EAA have been addressed.

Appendix A of this Review summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is presubmission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be undertaken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR.

The ministry is satisfied that the level of consultation completed for the EA was appropriate for this undertaking and was consistent with the approved ToR. The EA clearly documents the consultation methods used to engage all interested persons in the EA process. The Executive Summary, Chapter 10 and Appendix Q in the EA describe the consultation activities and the issues that were raised.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The GRT, the public and affected Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the ministry on whether the requirements of the ToR had been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the ministry during the EA comment period were forwarded to the proponents for a response. Summaries of all comments received along with the proponents' responses are included in Tables 1-3 of this Review. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B of this Review.

Government Review Team and agencies

During the preparation of the EA, the proponents consulted with government and other agencies such as the Ministries of Environment, Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Energy, Transportation, Economic Development, Trade and Employment (MEDTE), and Tourism, Culture and Sport; Infrastructure Ontario; the City of Toronto; the TPLC (formerly TEDCO); GO Transit/Metrolinx; CN Railway; the TPA; the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA); Transport Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Environment Canada; public utility companies (Hydro One, Toronto Hydro, Bell Canada, Enbridge Gas); Aquatic Habitat Toronto and others (Toronto Police, Ontario Provincial Police, Toronto Transit Commission, etc.).

Consultation occurred initially through the establishment of a technical advisory committee and then through meetings and correspondence with agencies; and review of draft EA documents.

As part of the submission of the EA, the ministry circulated the EA to all interested government agencies.

Comments were received on the original submission of the EA in February 2011 by provincial ministries including the MOE; the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS); the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and the Ministry of Infrastructure, Ontario growth Secretariat. Comments during this period were also provided by Environment Canada; Hydro One Networks; the TPLC; and, the TPA.

In general, most provincial and federal government agencies either had no concerns or had no significant outstanding concerns with the proposal in 2011. MOE technical reviewers were generally satisfied with the proposal. The Environmental Approvals Branch (EAB) (Air and Noise) indicated that the proponents are required to update the noise assessment work for the sediment management facilities during the detailed design to confirm the final mitigation. The noise assessment work will be submitted to the ministry for review prior to construction. The proponents committed to undertake this work as part of the EA. The MTCS requested that the proponents include additional mitigation to recognize the loss of culture heritage features and other comments requested that cultural heritage assessment work be completed. The proponents included a commitment to complete this work during the detailed design in the EA. Issues were also raised by the TPA in 2011 including potential impacts on port operations such as impacts on commercial shipping including the loss of dock walls and navigation of ships in the harbour. These issues were subsequently resolved by changes that occurred to the proposed undertaking which retained existing dock walls and eliminated the proposed promontories (infilled open space areas) originally proposed to jut out into the Inner Harbour.

During the review of the draft 2013 amended EA, comments were submitted to the proponent from MOE, MTCS, MNR, Hydro One Networks, CEAA, MEDTE and Toronto Public health. No significant concerns were raised about the EA; however, MTCS requested that it review the cultural heritage evaluation reports prior to construction associated with cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources that may be affected by the project. Toronto Public health requested to be involved on the advisory committee of stakeholders as part of the implementation of the undertaking. Hydro One Networks provided advice about any works which may affect its infrastructure and MNR indicated that all flood protection measures must be carried out in accordance with MNR's Natural Hazard Technical Guidelines 2002. It is noted that there are no species at risk affected by the proposal. The proponents provided a response to comments provided as documented in the EA and have committed to address all the items raised as part of the EA (Table 8-2). It was also confirmed by the proponents that no federal EA would be required for this project. MEDTE indicated that it supported the project and the resulting economic benefits to employment.

Agency comments received on the current 2014 amended EA submission included comments from the MOE, MEDTE, and Transport Canada. In general, MOE technical reviewers including Central Regional Office, the Toronto District Office, and EAB (Waste Water) were satisfied with the proposal and provided advice about subsequent permits and approvals required for the project. The noise reviewer in EAB made reference to its original comments that further noise assessment work for the sediment management facilities would be required during the detailed design. The noise assessment work will be submitted to the MOE for review prior to construction. While the proponent has committed to undertake and consult with MOE about this work in the EA, a proposed condition of approval is recommended to clarify this requirement, if the EA is approved. Transport Canada confirmed its permit requirements and that no federal lands would be involved. As a result, the project will not trigger a federal EA under CEAA. No other agency comments were received.

Table 1 of Appendix B of this Review provides a summary of the comments received as well as the proponents' responses to those issues and MOE's level of satisfaction with the response provided.

Public consultation

The proponents used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public. This included:

  • 5 public forums/open houses
  • Newsletters and flyers
  • Web site information
  • Site walk and boat tour
  • Community Liaison Committee meetings
  • Community workshops and events
  • Notices, letters and correspondence
  • Meetings with members of the public and community groups
  • Meetings with key landowners (e.g. TPLC, Lafarge Canada Incorporated, Home Depot; First Gulf Don Valley Developments (previously the Unilever Canada site); Redpathe Sugar Limited, Infrastructure Ontario-Ontario Realty Corporation, etc.).

Public forums/events were advertised by notices in the local newspapers, web site information, direct mailings/e-mail of newsletters and flyers. Comments received at various public venues are documented in Chapter 10 and Appendix Q in the EA. As identified in the ToR, the public and agencies were involved in finalizing the proposed environmental criteria and objectives for the project.

In 2011, during the original comment period on the EA, 8 public/stakeholder comments were received by the ministry. Six of the submissions received indicated their support for the project including comments from the Don Watershed Regeneration Council; the Task Force to Bring Back the Don; the West Don Lands Committee; and, members of the public.

Also at that time in 2011, issues were raised by two private sector landowners with existing businesses in the area that included one business in the central waterfront area (Redpathe Sugar Limited) and one business in the Lower Don area (LaFarge Canada Incorporated). Key issues and concerns included potential economic impacts on these businesses including impacts on commercial vessel ship navigation; the loss of mooring locations (dock walls) in the Inner Harbour; and water quality impacts. Since that time, these issues have been addressed by changes to the preferred undertaking and ongoing consultation by the proponents with these businesses. The proponents have proposed for Lafarge that the construction staging strategy provide for continued dockwall access at its current location while the rest of the project is being implemented and until such time as Lafarge wishes to relocate.

In 2011, Lafarge also had other concerns that the proposal did not conform with the Planning Act and the growth Plan and other issues. At that time the ministry consulted with the growth Plan Secretariat and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who confirmed that the proposed undertaking had regard for or was consistent with the Planning Act and the growth Plan.

As part of the 2014 submission of the amended EA to the ministry, three public comments were received including comments from a local business (First Gulf Don Valley Limited), a community group (the Don Watershed Regeneration Council), and a resident. both the local business and the community group are supportive of the project but did have some comments on potential impacts to the local business and other matters such as support for habitat areas, phasing, sediment and debris management, climate change considerations, and stormwater management.

Refer to Section 3.3.1 of this Review for some of the key issues raised, and to Table 2 in Appendix B of this Review for a summary of all of the issues raised as well as the proponents' responses to those issues and MOE's level of satisfaction with the response provided.

The EA indicates that public and agency consultation will continue as part of project implementation. Public forums are planned during the detailed design and construction phase. As well, a public advisory committee will be established during the construction of the project. During the detailed design, a mechanism will also be established for managing complaints from construction activities. Regular project updates will also continue to be provided through newsletters and the project web site.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to public consultation, the EAA requires that Aboriginal communities within the surrounding area of the proposed undertaking be consulted with during the pre-submission period. Aboriginal communities have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.

The proponents and the ministry contacted Aboriginal communities about the project during the preparation and submission of the EA to the ministry. Communities were identified by contacting the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada during the ministry’s review of the ToR and the EA.

The proponents contacted and discussed the project with potentially affected Aboriginal communities such as the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation; the Williams Treaty First Nations; the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation; the Toronto and York Region Métis Council; the Métis Nation of Ontario; the Huron Wendat First Nation; and, others as identified in Section 10.1.3 and 10.3.3 of the EA. A workshop was also held by Waterfront Toronto for interested First Nations. Also notices, correspondence, newsletters and project updates were provided to Aboriginal communities.

The proponents had various meetings and provided notices and project updates to the Williams Treat First Nations and the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation who settled a specific claim for lands within the City of Toronto. General interest by the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation was expressed related to preservation of any future Aboriginal artifacts that may be identified and the management of contaminated soils. The proponents provided information to the First Nation explaining the process/mitigation measures involved to address these items. No other specific issues of concern were identified with the project.

With respect to the other Aboriginal communities consulted in 2013 about the draft EA, the Alderville First Nation indicated that the project would have minimal potential to impact their rights but indicated that they would like to be advised of any archaeological findings or burial sites and suggested that wild rice be planted as part of the naturalization. Similarly the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation also had an interest in wild rice being introduced in this area as noted in its comments on the project to the ministry. The proponents hope to be able to establish such a plant community in either the greenway area beside the Ship Channel or if not another area will be choosen which will be less urbanized and less vulnerable to interference by carp such as Tommy Thomson Park.

During the formal comment period for the EA submission, the Curve Lake First Nation indicated that it applauded the proponents' efforts to naturalize the river. The Rama First Nation indicated that it would be conducting a further review of the Project. The Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation provided comments on the draft EA to the proponents during this period about management of contaminated soils and indicated their interest in wild rice being introduced in this area as noted above. No additional comments were provided by Aboriginal communities during this period.

It is noted that a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was prepared for the project and identified that there little to no potential for any Aboriginal archaeological resources in the area as it was very disturbed by past infilling activities and industrial uses. An archaeologist will be on-site during construction to identify if there are any deeply buried resources. The EA indicates that if Aboriginal resources are identified during construction Aboriginal communities will be further consulted.

Fish habitat in the lower Don River and the Keating Channel is described as degraded, highly disturbed and lacking in diversity and complexity. During project construction there will be impacts to low quality fish habitat from the infilling of the Essroc Quay as well as temporary nuisance impacts to fish from construction which will managed through mitigation such as reducing sedimentation in accordance with Best Management Practices (e.g. avoiding construction on windy days to reduce sedimentation); construction in the dry; timing construction to avoid any adverse flow conditions or migration periods, etc. In addition there are potential temporary impacts to water quality from construction. The project will however result in significant overall net benefits through the creation of extensive new habitat for fish in the Don River as well as improvements to water quality from the naturalization. The proponents will be required to address all municipal, provincial, and federal requirements and regulations for in water works and management of any contaminated soils.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

Overall, the ministry believes that the proponents provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. Feedback from the public and agencies affected decision making and mitigation proposed. The proponents provided various opportunities for input at key milestones in the EA process. Public and agency consultation will continue as part of project implementation. The proponents' consultation program was consistent with its approved ToR.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The ministry is satisfied that the EA was consistent with the approved ToR and is satisfied that the requirements of the EAA have been addressed.

3.2 EA process

The EA and technical appendices outlines the planning process followed and demonstrates how the proponents have selected the preferred undertaking.

According to the approved ToR, the EA would be prepared in accordance with section 6.1(2) of the EAA. Section 6.1(2) of the EAA outlines the generic requirements of the EA including identifying the problem or opportunity, considering alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluating the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and selecting a preferred alternative or undertaking.

The proponents followed a logical and transparent decision making process as outlined in the EA. Refer to Appendix A of this Review for the ministry’s analysis.

In general, the process for evaluation included:

  • Identifying a problem and opportunity and alternatives which could address.
  • Identifying and refining the study area which described the existing environment potentially affected for lands surrounding the Lower Don River as well as the broader environmental impact study area for lands in and around the Inner and Outer Harbour (Figure 2) which is intended to capture all of the potential environmental effects associated with the project. Refer also to Chapter 2 of the EA for a detailed description of the study area.
  • Providing a rationale and describing and evaluating the alternative to for various proposed river discharge points into the Inner and Outer Harbour and the Ship Channel. This included the Do nothing option.
  • Providing a rationale and describing and evaluating the alternative methods. This included carrying forward the Do nothing option as a base case comparison to the preferred alternative. Refer to Figure 3 of this Review for proponents' process of identifying and evaluating the long list and short list of alternatives. Alternative methods consisted of various river valley locations and discharge points into the Inner Harbour of Lake Ontario and the Ship Channel including:
    • Discharge to the Inner Harbour near Keating Channel
    • Discharge and river alignment through the Port Lands to the Ship Channel
    • Two discharge points including discharge near Keating Channel to the Inner Harbour and a river alignment through the Port Lands with a spillway to the Ship Channel
    • Two discharges points including spillways near the Keating Channel to the Inner Harbour and a river alignment through the Port Lands with the main discharge point to the Ship Channel
    • One discharge point and two spillways, including a spillway near the Keating Channel and to the Ship Channel and a main discharge point and river alignment to the south of the Keating Channel to the Inner Harbour (two location options including original preferred alternative and amended preferred alternative)
  • Describing the natural, social, cultural, and economic environments potentially affected in the study area for each alternative using an assessment of the project objectives for naturalization, flood protection, Waterfront Toronto’s Sustainability objectives and environmental criteria and indicators. The criteria and indicators were developed with input from the public and government agencies. Mitigation was also considered for construction related effects and other effects.
  • Undertaking a comparative analysis of each alternative including evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of one alternative against another.
  • Identifying and providing a rationale for selecting the preferred alternative including a detailed description of the preferred alternative/undertaking; assessment of the environmental effects; and providing proposed mitigation and net effects associated with the preferred alternative/undertaking.

Potential environmental effects

Potential environmental effects may include effects on fish habitat; economic effects including displacement of public property as well as potential impacts on some private land uses; potential impacts on port operations, infrastructure and utilities, cultural heritage landscapes and some built heritage features, and, other effects. The project does not involve the displacement of any private landowners.

The majority of environmental effects associated with the preferred undertaking include impacts from construction which can be mitigated including air quality/dust control; noise from machinery; soil management including excavation, filling, storing, clean up of contaminated soils, etc; management of ground water/dewatering; water quality including in water works (e.g. lake filling); nuisance effects; erosion and sediment controls; storm water management during construction; drilling; and impacts on marine operations. Potential environmental effects, benefits and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed undertaking are described in Chapter 7 and Appendix G of the EA.

3.2.1 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the proponents' decision making process. The EA was amended to provide greater clarity about the assumptions and conclusions which were provided in the EA. In the EA, the proponents were transparent about how it considered changes to the study area, criteria, and the assessment of alternatives which are permitted by the ToR. All alternatives were reassessed based on the changes which were done in consultation with stakeholders. The preferred alternative or undertaking that was identified was subject to a detailed assessment (Chapters 4, 5, 7, Appendices E, F, G, H, and M of the EA). The proponents have also provided a detailed response to public and agency issues raised during the preparation of the EA in Chapter 10 of the EA.

Figure 3: Identification and Evaluation of Alternative methods in EA

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of this figure.

The proponents are responsible for determining the alternatives that are reasonable to address the purpose of the study (problem or opportunity) in consultation with interested parties. In this case, the problem or opportunity (naturalization, flood protection for the river and addressing the derelict nature of the Port Lands) is consistent with the ToR. A ToR prepared under section 6.1(2) is not meant to unduly restrict a proponent from assessing effects, developing additional alternatives or considering different designs which would address the problem or opportunity. The ministry is satisfied that the required process components under the EAA have been addressed.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

3.3.1 Key issues

Issues regarding the EA completed by the proponents for the Don Mouthe Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA submission comment period. A number of comments were provided by the GRT and the public. All comments, including the proponents' responses and MOE's level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B of this Review. Some of the key issues are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Public comments received from First Gulf Don Valley Limited clarified that they would be demolishing their existing industrial building and replacing it with an office building and other commercial uses as such they indicated that they preferred that a valley wall

feature be constructed in lieu of a flood protection landform to allow for more developable land on the property. The proponents have indicated that if approval is obtained under the Planning Act that results in different potential environmental effects then there are amending procedures in place in the EA to consider and address this issue. The proponents also note that proposed construction timing of 5-10 years for Phases 1 and 2 of the project may align with First Gulf’s construction timing and there would be opportunities to coordinate the development of this project with First Gulf’s proposal. The ministry is satisfied with this approach. The proponents will also be required to consult with the ministry on any such amendments in accordance with the amending procedures in the EA.

The Don Watershed Regeneration Council confirmed its support for the project but offered some comments related to encouraging construction of the river (Phase 3) sooner as the development of the river, wetlands, and open space areas are the most effective catalyst to change the Port Lands. They also had concerns associated with potential noise impacts from proposed dredging facilities to manage sediment in the river near the Ship Channel area. They were concerned that if further work resulted in greater potential noise impacts that they would prefer the facilities to be located north of Lakeshore Boulevard. They also indicated that bridge clearances should err on the side of caution to accommodate potentially larger floods in the future that might result from climate change. They also had comments about stormwater management including that they prefer to have any required stormwater treatment facility located at Lakeshore Boulevard rather than adjacent to Cousins or Polson Quay naturalized areas.

The proponents agreed that efforts would be made to accelerate the development of Phase 3 of the river. With respect to noise impacts from the sediment management facilities, two options are being considered in the EA for the hydrocyclone facility (north of Lakeshore Boulevard or near the Ship Channel). The hydrocyclone is the facility that dewaters the dredged materials, separates the water and sediment and sorts sediment by grain size prior to disposal. Each option will require further detailed analysis and may be informed by other initiatives such as changes to the Gardiner Expressway or the Port Lands Master Plan. The proponents will be required to undertake a detailed noise assessment for any such proposal and to provide it to the ministry for review during the detailed design stage. A final location will be proposed and final mitigation measures will be determined. A proposed condition of approval is recommended to clarify this requirement, if the EA is approved.

Climate change considerations have been incorporated into the EA and a number of safety measures have been incorporated in the EA to address any future increases in weather events. Storm water from surrounding developments is intended to be discharged to the Keating Channel, the Ship Channel or the Inner Harbour and not the created wetlands habitats for this project. If there is to be any storm water run off from surrounding developments entering the habitat wetlands areas this water will be treated as the wetlands are not intended to be an area for stormwater management which would require an Environmental Compliance Approval for sewage works. The ministry notes that the location of any stormwater management treatment facilities that may be required for surrounding development is addressed under the Lower Don Lands EA Master Plan under the Municipal Class EA which has recently been completed.

A resident has also raised a number of concerns about the EA including looking at species in the natural areas and the amendment procedures eroding the integrity of the EA. The resident also raises matters outside of the scope of the project including providing additional green spaces south of the Ship Channel; naturalization of the Don Narrows and associated linkages to Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine; and, the use of the 10 metre setback from the top of the bank for future development outside of the flood plain area. The proponents have provided a response to these issues in Table 2 of Appendix B of the Review. The ministry is satisfied with the response provided and notes that in general any amendments to the EA must be done in consultation with the ministry.

3.3.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponents' decision making process and the proposed undertaking. The ministry is satisfied that commitments made in the EA and any proposed conditions of approval will ensure that potential environmental effects can be addressed. The ministry is also satisfied with the consultation undertaken on the EA and that appropriate parties will continue to be consulted as part of the implementation of the undertaking.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the Don Mouthe Naturalization and Port Lands Flood protection project EA.

This Review concludes that:

  • The ministry is satisfied that the EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA.
  • The ministry is satisfied that the proponents have provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT; members of the public and other stakeholders; and, Aboriginal communities to provide input into the EA. The results of the consultations have also been clearly documented in the consultation record provided in the EA.
  • The ministry is satisfied with the proponents' responses to the GRT and public submissions.
  • The proponents used a clear and logical decision making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was chosen in accordance with the approved ToR.
  • The ministry has enough information about the potential environmental effects to enable a decision to be made about the proposed undertaking. Proposed conditions of approval will ensure that environmental effects can be verified and mitigation of effects is achievable (e.g. the ministry to review detailed noise assessment for hydrocyclone).
  • If the EA is approved, standard conditions of approval are also recommended for the implementation of the undertaking including general requirements to comply with the EA and any commitments provided; obtain other approvals and permits under other statutes; documentation requirements for the public record; compliance monitoring provisions for the proponents to conduct and report on compliance; amending procedures; and the preparation of a complaints protocol to respond to all complaints received during all phases of the undertaking.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment period and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

  • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking
  • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
  • Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking

Prior to making that decision, the Minister may also refer either part of or the entire EA to mediation or refer either part of or the entire EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a decision.

If the Minister approves, approves with conditions or refuses to give approval to the undertaking, the Lieutenant Governor in Council must concur with the decision.

5.1 Additional Approvals Required

If EAA approval is granted, the proponents will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 1.5 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • Approvals from the TPA (e.g. water lots)
  • Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act (e.g. Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA); Permit to Take Water)
  • Record of Site Condition under Regulation 153/04 for contaminated soils
  • Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act
  • TRCA Regulation of Development and Ontario Regulation 166/06 – Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Water Courses
  • Infrastructure Ontario Class EA approval for disposition lands (sediment management)
  • Official Plan Amendment 388 implementation and rezoning under the Planning Act
  • Site plan approval under the Planning Act for sediment and debris management area (if required)
  • Federal permits and authorizations from Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada
  • Other City of Toronto permits and approvals

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Given the anticipated 10-20 year build out the undertaking and the adaptive management approach as a result of performance monitoring, it is anticipated that there may be modifications to the design and scheduling of the undertaking. In Chapter 9 of the EA, amending procedures are proposed to address any modifications. In general, these procedures include documentation of any proposed changes and potential environmental effects/mitigation and public and agency consultation on the modifications as warranted by the extent of the change.

It should be noted that the MOE will be responsible for reviewing any modifications and confirming the appropriate use of these amending procedures. A condition of approval is recommended to clarify this matter.

Any changes which are considered to be outside the scope of theses amending procedures may be considered a new undertaking under Section 12 of the EAA and as such the proponents would be required to meet Part II of the EAA (prepare an individual EA) or follow the Conservation Ontario Class EA for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects as may be applicable.

Public record locations

The public record for this environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario

The Review and Notice of Completion are also available at the following locations:

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Central Region Office
5775 Yonge Street, 8th floor
north York, Ontario
M2M 4J1

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive (Lobby)
Toronto, Ontario
M3N 1S4

Waterfront Toronto
20 Bay Street, Suite 1310
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2N8

Toronto Reference Library
789 Yonge Street (2nd floor reference desk)
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 2G8

City of Toronto Clerk’s Office (Works Committee Office)
100 Queen Street West, 10th floor, West Tower
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending August 29, 2014 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

Agathea Garcia-Wright, Director
Environmental Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Don Mouthe Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment
Attention: Solange Desautels, Special Project Officer

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix A.

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

Please contact EAASIBGen@ontario.ca for a copy of Appendix B.