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 Review was October 21, 2011, as extended. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment 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

The Regional Municipality of York (Region of York)

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes road and transit improvements to Highway 27, Major Mackenzie Drive, Rutherford Road, Pine Valley Drive and Weston Road in the western part of the City of Vaughan.

When

EA submitted: July 15, 2011; amended September 30, 2011
EA submission comment period: July 15 to September 2, 2011
Ministry review comment period: November 4 to December 9, 2011

Where

The study area represents almost the entire western half of the City of Vaughan, generally between Highway 50 and Highway 400, generally north of Highway 407 and south of Teston Road.

Why

The purpose of the undertaking is to address transportation deficiencies to satisfy east-west and north-south travel demands. Also the undertaking will improve transportation mobility and facilitate more convenient and reliable transportation choices.

Conclusions

The Ministry of the Environment’s Review of the EA concluded that the proponent has prepared the EA in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The ministry is satisfied that the Region of York used a clear and logical decision making process to determine how the preferred undertaking was selected from the alternatives considered. Proposed standard conditions of approval are recommended for the implementation of the undertaking.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent led planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the potential 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 environmental effects, if an undertaking should proceed, and if so, how environmental effects can be managed.

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and potentially 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 Term 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 July 16, 2004 the Minister elevated this proposal from a Class EA project to an individual EA through a Part II Order.

On February 13, 2006, the Minister approved the ToR with amendments. These amendments precluded the inclusion of road improvements for Pine Valley Drive through the Boyd Conservation Area and instead directed the study in the EA on north-south and east-west transportation improvements in the western area of the City of Vaughan. The approved ToR sets out how the Region of York would assess alternatives to address transportation deficiencies in the western Vaughan study area; assess potential environmental effects; and, consult with the public and government agencies during the preparation of the EA.

The alternatives to be considered in the EA included individual alternatives and a combination of alternatives including: Do nothing; planned road and transit improvements, other than those on Pine Valley Drive as noted above; travel demand and system management measures; additional public transit initiatives; and other road improvements.

The ToR established the proponents’ framework or work plan that would be used during the planning and decision-making process that would be followed during the preparation of the EA. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

1.2 Environmental assessment

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

On July 15, 2011, the Region of York submitted the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment to the ministry for review and a decision for the proposed road and transit improvements in western Vaughan. The EA submission comment period ended on September 2, 2011.

1.3 Ministry review

The EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local government 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, evaluated the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, government 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 The Toronto Star and the Vaughan Citizen indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from November 4 to December 9, 2011. 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

The Region of York is seeking approval under the EAA for various road and transit improvements in western Vaughan.

If EAA approval is granted, the proposed improvements to the road and transit systems in the western Vaughan area will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA and any proposed conditions of approval. In addition, the Region of York must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

The preferred alternative consists of road and transit improvements in the study area including:

  • Widening of the Highway 27 from 2 to 4 lanes between north of Nashville Road and Major Mackenzie Drive
  • Elimination of the jog in the roadway at Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 27
  • Widenings to 6 lanes to accommodate additional road capacity for vehicles, dedicated transit lanes/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and bike lanes for:
    • Major Mackenzie Drive between Highway 50 and 400
    • Rutherford Road between Highway 50 and Weston Road
    • Highway 27 between Major Mackenzie Drive and Steeles Avenue
    • Pine Valley Drive between Highway 7 and Steeles Avenue
    • Weston Road between Major Mackenzie Drive and Steeles Avenue

All the above noted roadways to be widened to 6 lanes are currently 4 lanes with the exception of Major Mackenzie Drive which is currently 2 lanes.

Purpose of undertaking

The purpose of the undertaking is to address transportation deficiencies to satisfy eastwest and north-south travel demands. Also the undertaking will improve transportation mobility and facilitate more convenient and reliable transportation choices within the western Vaughan area as new growth occurs over the next 25 years. In anticipation of future population and employment growth, the Region of York recognizes the need to manage congestion more efficiently and sustainably, ensuring that its transportation system can accommodate new growth.

Implementation

The preferred undertaking will be built in phases. The phased implementation is based on projected traffic needs and would be subject to change depending on future traffic conditions and the availability of funding through the Region of York’s 10 year capital plan. The following timeline for improvements are proposed:

  • Major Mackenzie Road in the short term (+10 year)
  • Weston Road; Pine Valley; and Rutherford Road west of Highway 27 in the medium term (+20 years)
  • Highway 27 and Rutherford Road east of Highway 27 in the long term (30 years)

Monitoring

The EA includes both environmental effects monitoring and compliance monitoring. The EA lists the commitments for the detailed design, construction and operation which will be included as part of the compliance monitoring in the proposed annual reports. The EA also includes an environmental effects monitoring strategy and schedule. Environmental effects monitoring will ensure that predicted net effects are not exceeded; unexpected environmental effects are addressed; and, predicted benefits are realized. Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) will also be prepared where required to support permit and approval applications. EMPs will detail the environmental commitments, monitoring requirements and approval conditions associated with construction and operation.

Given the long implementation period associated with the preferred undertaking, the EA also includes an updating provision after 10 years to ensure that the environmental conditions, proposed mitigation, and the purpose of the transportation improvements are still valid.

Existing environment context

There is a variety of different land uses within the study area. The central portion of the study area is composed of predominately naturalized areas and community areas including the communities of Woodbridge and Kleinburg. The central portion also consists of the Humber River and East Humber River valleys as well as the Boyd Conservation Area (842 hectares (ha)) and the Kortheright Centre for Conservation (325 ha).

Between Highway 50 and Highway 27 in the western part of the study area the lands consist of predominately vacant fields that are intended to be redeveloped in the future as employment lands. Along Highway 50 there are mainly fields and farms with a small residential community, shopping plaza, golf course and a large industrial use.

Lands in the southrn part of the study area in and around Highway 7 east of Highway 27 are occupied by big box retail plazas, parking lots, industrial uses and a mixture of other uses. The Pine Valley Drive corridor south of Highway 7 to Steeles Avenue consists of industrial uses to the east and residential uses to the west. To the east between Weston Road and Highway 400, south of Rutherford Road lands are for existing and proposed employment lands. Lands west of Weston Road largely consist of residential communities uses including lands along Weston Road between Major Mackenzie and Rutherford Road.

Highway 27, Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road cross the Humber River, the East Humber River and tributaries of these rivers. Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road also cross the large naturalized areas associated with the Kortheright Conservation Area and the Boyd Conservation Area respectively. The Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road corridors are also adjacent to suburban residential, farm and industrial uses.

Figure 1: Proposed undertaking

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 summarizes this analysis and identifies how the ToR requirements have been addressed in the EA.

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be 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 7 and Appendix 7 in the EA describe the consultation activities and the issues that were raised.

Once the EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry led consultation occurs during the EA comment period. The Government Review Team (GRT), the public and potentially 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 Region of York for a response. Summaries of all of the comments received along with the Region of York’s responses are included in Tables 1-2. Copies of the GRT submissions are also available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team

During the preparation of the EA, the proponents consulted with the following government and other agencies: the Ministries of Environment (MOE); Transportation (MTO); Aboriginal Affairs; Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMFRA); Tourism and Culture (MTC); Infrastructure; Municipal Affairs and Housing; and Natural Resources (MNR); Ontario Heritage Trust; Infrastructure Ontario (formerly Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC)); Conservation Ontario; the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); York Catheolic District School Board; York Region District School Board; Ontario Provincial Police; Region of York staff; the City of Vaughan; the Region of Peel; Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada (formerly Department of Indian and northrn Affairs); Environment Canada; Transport Canada; CP Rail and CN Rail.

Throughout the EA process, meetings and discussions were held with representatives of the Ministry of Environment, other government agencies and the project team. Review agencies were also invited to participate at Review Agency Advisory Committee meetings. At key milestones, the Region of York provided status updates and updated project information for review. Agencies were also invited to comment on draft EA report between January 12, 2011 and February 18, 2011.

Comments from government agencies on the submission of the EA included comments from the MOE; MTC; MTO; OMAFRA; and the Ministry of Infrastructure – Ontario growth Secretariat. Comments were also received from the City of Brampton; the Region of Peel and the TRCA.

In general government agencies did not have significant concerns with the project. Information and clarifications were requested about references to the growth Plan; permits required prior to construction by TRCA; transportation design details including cross sections related to the approved Highway 427 Extension EA; intersection designs with Highway 50 and transportation connectivity issues and safety issues for cyclists.

MOE technical reviewers are seeking additional commitments and information about air quality assessment work and storm water management information for the EA and during the detailed design. The MTC also made specific recommendations requiring approvals by MTC for archaeological reports as well as additional heritage reports required prior to the detailed design phase.

Public consultation

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

  • Creation of a project specific web site to provide information about the project
  • A project newsletter
  • Neighbourhood meetings
  • Meetings with property owners
  • Meetings with government agencies
  • Advertisements in Vaughan Citizen and the Toronto Star of public meetings
  • Direct mailings to stakeholders within the study area
  • Six Community Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings comprised of local residents, business owners, property owners, and environmental and transportation organizations
  • Five rounds of Public Consultation Centres which consisted of eleven meetings with the public and interested stakeholders

During the pre-submission of the EA, comments were raised by the public about a variety of issues including: traffic congestion in the study area; the need for road improvements on major routes in the study area; the need to improve public transit and pedestrian access; increase of traffic and noise; pedestrian and cyclist safety; preservation and conservation of natural conservation areas and existing trails; and, improving future land use planning initiatives.

Three public comments were received during the EA submission comment period including a member of the public, U-Pak Disposals Limited and the Rimwood Estates Homeowners Association.

Concerns raised include pedestrian safety on a sidewalk on Highway 27 raised by a resident; potential environmental effects and the assessment of alternatives associated with the eliminating the jog at Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 27 by U-Pak Disposals Limited (refer also to Section 3.2.1 of this Review); and, a request by the Rimwood Estates Homeowners Association to include homes near Teston and Weston Roads as part of the proponent’s proposed groundwater well monitoring program. A summary of these comments, the proponent’s response to these comments and the ministry’s satisfaction with this response is included is included in Table 2 of Appendix B of this Review.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to public consultation, the EAA requires that potentially affected Aboriginal communities be consulted during the pre-submission period. Aboriginal communities have special land and treaty rights that need to be considered.

The Region of York contacted potentially affected First Nations communities, inviting them to participate in the process based on information provided from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada during the preparation of the EA. The proponent contacted and met with various Fist Nations including: Alderville Fist Nation; Beausoleil Fist Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island; Chippewas of Mnjikaning; Curve Lake First Nation; Hiawatha First Nation; Iroquois Confederacy; Mississaugas of Scugog Island; Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte; Moose Deer Point First Nation; Nation Huronne Wendat; and the Six Nations of the Grand River.

Two Aboriginal communities commented on the draft EA report. This included the Alderville First Nation and the Curve Lake First Nation. both First Nations indicated that they were not concerned about the project but indicated an interest in being contacted about any future Aboriginal archaeological findings or burial sites.

During the EA submission comment period the Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation and the Chippewas of Rama commented on the EA. The Curve Lake First Nation and the Alderville First Nation indicated that they had no concerns but they wished to kept informed of any future archaeological findings, burial sites, or other environmental impacts. The Chippewas of Rama First Nation indicated that they had forwarded the EA information to the Williams Treaty First Nation coordinator for review and comment. No further First Nation comments were received by the ministry on the EA.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

Overall, the ministry believes that the Region of York 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 proponent’s consultation program was consistent with its approved ToR.

3.1.3 Conclusion

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

3.2 EA process

The EA was prepared according to the approved ToR which included in general 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 section 4 of this Review for the ministry’s analysis.

In general, the process for evaluation included:

  • Identifying the problems and opportunities and alternatives which could address this
  • Identifying and refining the study area which described the existing environment potentially affected for lands within the western portion of the City of Vaughan. The study area includes lands which are generally described as being west of Highway 400, east of Highway 50, north of Highway 407, and south of Teston Road
  • Providing a rationale and describing and evaluating the ‘alternatives to’ the undertaking to improve transportation mobility in the western Vaughan area and to address population and employment growth in the year 2031. The ‘alternatives to’ included:
    • Do nothing
    • Travel Demand Management (TDM)
    • Transportation System Management (TSM)
    • Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (road and transit improvements)
    • TMP and additional transit improvements
    • TMP and additional road improvements
    • Transit only from TMP, TDM, TSM, and additional transit improvements
    • TMP, TDM, TSM, and additional transit improvements
    • All improvements (TMP, TDM, TSM, additional transit and road improvements)
  • Screening a list of “alternatives to” the undertaking to a short list of alternatives considered reasonable for comparative evaluation as described in the approved ToR. The screening process determined which alternatives were capable of improving transportation mobility as described in Chapter 2 (Purpose of/Rationale for the Undertaking).
  • Selecting the preferred “alternative to” which consisted of TMP, TDM, TSM as well as additional transit improvements beyond the TMP.
  • Providing a rationale and describing and evaluating the “alternative methods”. In additional to TDM and TSM, this included considering various road and transit improvements on Highway 50, Highway 27, Major Mackenzie Drive, Rutherford Road, Weston Road, and Pine Valley Drive. This also included carrying forward the “Do nothing” option as a base case comparison.
  • Describing the natural, socio-economic, and cultural environments potentially affected in the study area for each alternative using an assessment of environmental criteria and indicators which were developed with input from the public and government agencies
  • Undertaking a comparative analysis of each alternative including identifying net effects and 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 potential environmental effects; proposed mitigation and net effects associated with the preferred alternative/undertaking
Environmental effects

The majority of potential environmental effects associated with the preferred undertaking include: impacts from construction which can be mitigated including erosion and sediment control measures; timing of construction activities; developing and implementing a spill response plan; undertaking wetland restoration on or off-site using native wetland species; implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for dust suppression and noise vibration reduction; isolating in-stream work areas from the primary channel to allow for fish passage and other mitigation measures.

Other potential impacts may include: effects on cultural heritage resources; fish habitat; wetland habitats and functions; groundwater quantity and water supply; surface water quality and quantity; and economic effects including property impacts. Potential environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures for the proposed undertaking are described in Chapter 5 of the EA.

3.2.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the EA process completed by the Region of York for the Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period.

While the GRT and Aboriginal communities did not provide any comments to the ministry indicating any concerns with the EA process, a public submission from U-Pak Disposals Limited raised concerns about the evaluation of alternatives associated with the alignment for the elimination of the jog at Major Mackenzie Drive and Highway 27. It is understood that the road realignment will bisect the U-Pak Disposals Limited property and that U-Pak Disposals Limited met with the Region of York several times, had input into identifying other alternatives alignments and provided the proponent with conceptual development plans for the future residential redevelopment of the U-Pak Disposals Limited property. It is also understood that U-Pak Disposals Limited favours alignment MM-2A as opposed to the preferred alternative MM-2B.

The ministry has no concerns with the Region of York’s evaluation and notes that all environmental factors must be taken into consideration including approved developments to the north; the potential impacts to the natural environment associated with alternative MM-2A (least preferred); the safety of the proposed design (not optimal for MM-2A) and comments received by members of the GRT such as the City of Vaughan, TRCA, CP Rail and others. The preferred alternative does not preclude future residential uses on the U-Pak Disposals Limited property and there will be compensation provided for land required for the new road under the Expropriations Act. It is also noted that the proposed design makes an effort to avoid existing buildings on the site which will be further refined during the detailed design.

A summary of U-Pak Disposals Limited’s submission including the Region of York’s responses and MOE’s level of satisfaction with the proponent’s responses can be found in Table 2 of Appendix B.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision-making process. The EA clearly articulates the process followed to assess potential environmental effects associated with the undertaking and the alternatives.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

3.3.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the proposed undertaking were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review comment period. A number of issues were raised by the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities. A summary of all comments received, including York Regions’ 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.

The EA was amended and resubmitted to the ministry on September 30, 2011. The amended EA clarified and corrected references to the growth Plan; provided commitments to work with the Region of Peel to coordinate the design of the intersections of Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road to the west of Highway 427 (including the intersections with Highway 50); corrected design inconsistencies with cross sections for the interchange area associated with the approved Highway 427 Extension EA as requested by MTO; and, addressed the natural and cultural heritage comments raised by MOE and MTC, respectively.

The MTC is recommending submission, review and sign off by MTC for any archaeological reports prior to the detailed design. Also cultural heritage evaluations and heritage impact assessments are recommended to be completed and reviewed by MTC prior to the completion of the detailed design for built heritage resources for the purpose of avoiding, limiting and mitigating heritage resources. They also recommend that the proponent contact the Registrar of Cemeteries to provide advice regarding any potential impacts to cemeteries and the ossuary potential zone. The proponent has agreed to the requirements of the MTC and has revised and clarified these requirements as well as additional mitigation measures in the amended EA.

MOE technical reviewers requested that additional air quality modelling work be done for the proposed undertaking as well as additional commitments with respect to stormwater management including Enhanced Level 1 Treatment and other specific design requirements. The proponent has revised the EA to address these issues and has included additional commitments for this work to be completed during the detailed design. MOE technical reviewers wish to ensure appropriate ministry involvement in the preparation of the proponent’s stormwater management strategy for Enhanced Level I Treatment water protection measures during the detailed design. If the undertaking is approved, a proposed condition of approval is recommended to require that the strategy be prepared in consultation with the MOE during the detailed design phase and that the strategy shall be reviewed by the MOE’s Central Region office.

U-Pak Disposals Limited also indicated concerns about impacts from noise if a nearby CP Rail overpass is proposed and requested noise barriers for future residential development for U-Pak Disposal’s lands. The Region of York has advised that its policy is to provide noise mitigation for existing residential uses where required (with increases in excess of 5 decibel (dB). Future residential developments must provide noise mitigation as part the subsequent approval process associated with the residential plan of subdivision. It is understood that in the EA the expected noise level from increased road traffic will not exceed 5dB for the existing residential use. In general, the ministry is satisfied with the noise assessment completed and the proposed mitigation for noise.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decisionmaking process and the proposed undertaking. The ministry is satisfied that the commitments made by the Region of York will ensure that any potential environmental effects can be mitigated and managed. The ministry is also satisfied that appropriate interested parties will continue to be consulted through out the implementation of the undertaking.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the Western Vaughan transportation Improvements Individual Environmental Assessment.

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 proponent’s 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
  • If the undertaking as described in the EA is approved, a proposed condition is recommended which will require the stormwater strategy to be prepared in consultation with the ministry and subject to review by the ministry to ensure that the proponent’s stormwater management strategy prepared during the detailed design will provide enhanced water quality protection measures and mitigation to manage stormwater runoff
  • 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; clarification regarding the documentation and consultation requirements for amendments to the detailed design of the undertaking; 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 ministry Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

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

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

  • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking
  • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions
  • 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.

Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the Region of York will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 8 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • City of Vaughan (e.g. tree by-laws, noise by-laws, property agreements, discharge to sewer permits and fill and topsoil disturbance by-law)
  • Utility authorities’ approvals
  • MOE (e.g. Ontario Water Resources Act—Permits to Take Water)
  • MTC (e.g. Letter of Concurrence for Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment)
  • ORC (e.g. permanent or temporary easement agreements on hydro lands under Ministry of Infrastructure Class EA)
  • TRCA (e.g. permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses)
  • Ontario Heritage Trust (e.g. Approvals for purchase or exchange of land)
  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (e.g. Fisheries Act)
  • Canadian Transportation Agency (e.g. Canada Transportation Act, agreements regarding rail crossings)
  • Transport Canada (e.g. Permit under Navigable Waters Protection Act).

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

The proponent has submitted a project description to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to determine if a federal EA is required in accordance with the approved ToR. Federal triggers may include permits and authorizations from federal bodies, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Transportation Agency and Transport Canada.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Given the long term build out of the undertaking, the Region of York EA recognizes that there could be changes to the detailed design of the undertaking. The EA includes an amending procedure to address this issue. The amending procedure includes a process both for minor and major amendments.

Minor amendments consist of amendments to the detailed design of the undertaking and involve the appropriate consultation with directly affected stakeholders as well as consultation and review by the ministry. This includes a 30-day public consultation period; documentation and mitigation of any potential effects and compensation when required. In the EA, the proponent is proposing that any changes which result in no new net effects would not have to follow the minor amendment process. A proposed condition of approval is recommended to clarify that the ministry will be requiring documentation through an addendum for any changes and will work with the proponent to determine the appropriate consultation requirements for those design changes which will result in no new net effects.

Major amendments consist of significant changes to where and how the undertaking would be built. In these cases, the Region of York will conduct a new individual EA or follow the provisions of the Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class EA for road or HOV lane transit improvements.

It should be noted that the ministry will determine the nature and extent of its review and the appropriate use of these amending procedures as well as the need for an addendum report associated with a design change.

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, Environmental Assessment and 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
Central Region Office
5775 Yonge Street, 8th floor
north York, Ontario
M2M 4J1

York Region Administrative Centre
17250 Yonge Street
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 6Z1

City of Vaughan Municipal Office
2141 Major Mackenzie Drive
Vaughan, Ontario
L6A 1T1

Pierre Berton Resource Library
4921 Rutherford Road
Woodbridge, Ontario
L4L 1A6

Woodbridge Library
150 Woodbridge Avenue
Woodbridge, Ontario
L4L 2S7

Ansley Grove Library
350 Ansley Grove Road
Woodbridge, Ontario
L4L 5C9

Kleinburg Library
10341 Islington Avenue
Kleinburg, Ontario
L0J 1C0

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was October 21, 2011, as extended. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment 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.

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending December 9, 2011, 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
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Western Vaughan Transportation Improvements Individual 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.