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 April 23, 2010. 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

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)

What

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

  • a 6.6 kilometre extension of Highway 427 from Highway 7 northward to Major Mackenzie Drive including three interchanges
  • protection of lands for a dedicated transitway along the west side of the extension including land for three transitway stations with parking lots

When

EA submitted: January 29, 2010

EA comment period: January 29, 2010–March 19, 2010
Ministry review comment period: May 14, 2010–June 18, 2010

Where

The proposed extension of Highway 427 would be located in the City of Vaughan within the Regional Municipality of York.

Why

The purpose of the undertaking is to address existing and short-term future transportation problems related to the current Highway 427 terminus, including congestion on arterial roads to the north, and to improve truck traffic accessibility to the Canadian Pacific Vaughan Intermodal Facility.

Conclusions

The ministry Review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and the Environmental Assessment Act. Sufficient opportunities were provided to allow interested persons to be involved in the planning process. Notwithstanding, there are outstanding issues which need to be addressed.

During the period between the publication of this Review and before the Minister makes a decision about the proposed undertaking, further discussion between MTO, MOE and applicable reviewers will be necessary to respond to the remaining issues.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making 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 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 affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. If 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 June 22, 2005 the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) submitted the Highway 427 Transportation Corridor ToR to MOE for approval. The ToR set out how MTO would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the rationale for identifying the method to address congestion issues related to the terminus of Highway 427 at Highway 7, including congestion on York and Peel Region arterial roads (such as Highways 27 and 50) to the north of the terminus, and to improve truck accessibility to the Canadian Pacific (CP)

Vaughan Intermodal Facility (railway to truck goods transfer station) located in western Vaughan. The ToR also indicated that the route for any proposed transportation corridor would be chosen so as to not preclude or predetermine planning for any future provincial transportation corridors, such as the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) West Corridor or, if required, a future extension further north of the Highway 427 corridor. Further, the ToR also stated that the selection of the undertaking would allow the required property for any proposed transportation corridor to be identified and protected thus allowing development to occur outside of the transportation corridor. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

The ToR was made available for a five-week public, government agency and Aboriginal community review period which concluded on July 25, 2005. After considering all the comments received and the amendments to the ToR which MTO agreed to make to address public and agency concerns, the Minister approved the Highway 427 Transportation Corridor ToR on November 1, 2005.

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 prepare 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 decision-making.

On January 29, 2010, MTO submitted to the ministry, for a decision by the Minister, the Highway 427 Extension Transportation Corridor EA. The EA comment period ended on March 19, 2010.

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 proposed 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, evaluate 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 of the Environment 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 issues 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 is being published in five locally and regionally distributed newspapers indicating that this Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period from May 14, 2010 to June 18, 2010. Copies of the Review will be placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies will be 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 will receive copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

Background

Highway 427 was originally constructed from the Queen Elizabeth Way to north of Toronto (now Pearson) International Airport in 1972 when the previously existing Highway 27 (a four-lane expressway) was reconstructed as a 12-lane core/collector freeway and linked northeasterly over Highway 401 (where it was six to eight lanes) with the existing Airport Expressway. The highway was extended to reach former Highway 50 in the 1980s and later to reach Highway 7 (six lanes) in the early 1990s when Highway 407 was constructed.

In 2000, MTO announced it was studying a potential 50 kilometre (km) extension of Highway 427 potentially as far north as Highway 89, which is about 20 kilometres south of Barrie in Simcoe County. A Simcoe County Provincial Highway Network Needs Assessment Study was also launched by MTO. In November 2002 the two study processes were consolidated and the combined study concluded that traffic demand justified extending Highway 427 about 80 km northward to Highways 400 and 11 north of Barrie. Public meetings were held on this potential extension in 2003.

In 2005, the province released the draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan). The draft Growth Plan and the final Growth Plan (released 2006) only show a short (5 to 7 km) extension of Highway 427 northward towards the Canadian Pacific Intermodal Facility such that the extension would not enter into the Greater Toronto Area Greenbelt or the Oak Ridges Moraine planning area. This is the proposal for which MTO submitted a ToR for in June, 2005.

Description of proposed undertaking

MTO is seeking approval under the EAA for a transportation corridor comprised of the following elements:

  • A 6.6 km extension of Highway 427 from Highway 7 running generally northward with a slight curvature to the west to Major Mackenzie Drive within the City of Vaughan in the Region of York. The highway would feature:
    • six lanes until Rutherford Road and four lanes from that point northward
    • protection for median High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes
    • interchanges at Langstaff Road, Rutherford Road and Major Mackenzie Drive
  • Protection of lands for a transitway (a dedicated bus road) along the west side of the extension with proposed transitway stations with parking lots at each of the three interchanges.

The highway and transitway will generally have 110 metre and 60 metre rights-of-way, respectively. The highway will also require four additional major watercourse bridges (each over branches of Rainbow and Robinson Creeks), nine cross culverts for other watercourses, and eight stormwater management ponds. Two non-interchange related underpasses will be built, one for Zenway Boulevard just north of Highway 7, and another for McGillivray Road and the CP Rail line just south of Major Mackenzie Drive. Future transitway stations will have passenger drop-off facilities and a parking lot, although the Rutherford Road transitway parking station will be established as a car pool parking lot in advance of the transitway’s development.

The proposed highway is not currently on MTO’s five-year southrn Highways Program but MTO indicates that if the EA is approved it will proceed with environmental approvals and detailed design so that it could proceed when funding becomes available. The median HOV lanes would likely be constructed in the medium- or long-term future when traffic demand indicates such lanes would be of benefit. The transitway would proceed after the highway is constructed when relevant transit providers determine the facility would have a benefit for the transportation needs in the corridor and when funding is available.

The purpose of the undertaking is to address existing and short-term future transportation problems related to congestion at the current Highway 427 terminus, including on York Region and Peel Region arterial roads (especially Highways 27 and 50) to the north of its terminus, and to improve truck traffic accessibility to the Canadian Pacific Vaughan Intermodal Terminal. The undertaking supports the transportation objectives of the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The preferred route for the transportation corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. The preliminary design of the proposed undertaking is presented in Appendix D which is contained in Appendices: Volume 1 of the EA.

If EAA approval is granted, the proposed undertaking 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 above. In addition, MTO must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking. At the current time, it is not believed any approval under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is required.

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 Conformity 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. MOE concludes that the EA followed the framework set out in the approved ToR, addressed commitments made in the approved ToR, and demonstrated how the required components of the EAA have been met.

Appendix A of the 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 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.

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 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 MTO for a response. Summaries of all comments received, along with MTO’s responses, are included in Tables 1–3 of this Review. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B of this Review.

Consultation with Government Review Team

As indicated in Chapter 2 of the EA, consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. MTO organized a Regulatory Agencies Advisory Group (RAAG) composed of about 15 provincial and federal government agencies/ministries with a mandated interest in the project. Four meetings with the RAAG were held, each at key process points in the EA process which was generally after key decision points. Several additional meetings and site visits were also held with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) regarding natural environmental matters. The meetings are documented in Appendix B of the EA and additional letters between MTO and particular government agencies are included in the Record of Consultation of the EA.

MTO circulated the draft EA to the GRT for a five-week review and comment period. The comments that were received on the draft EA were documented in the Record of Consultation (Appendix C of EA), along with MTO’s responses to the particular concerns raised and changes were made to the EA as necessary.

The final EA was submitted to MOE for a decision on January 29, 2010, at which time it was circulated to the GRT for review and comment. In addition to comments being provided by various offices of MOE, comments were received from MNR, the Ontario Growth Secretariat of the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, Metrolinx/GO Transit, and the Ministry of Culture. TRCA indicated that the substantial range of items that it had previously commented on had been adequately addressed by MTO’s responses and that MTO’s commitment to further consultation with TRCA would ensure that any issue TRCA identified at the more detailed design stage would be addressed. All other agencies provided either a statement of no concern or indicated they had no interest in the project. Section 3.3 of this Review provides a discussion of the comments submitted by the GRT.

Consultation with municipalities

Early in the EA process, MTO formed a Municipal Advisory Group (MAG) consisting of local and regional municipalities in or nearby the study area for the project. The local municipalities included the City of Vaughan, City of Brampton, Town of Caledon and Township of King, while the regional municipalities included York and Peel. Four presentations/meetings were held with the MAG at key decision points in the process and additional presentations to or meetings with committees or councils of specific municipalities were also held at key points (see Section 2.2 of EA). Meetings with certain municipalities’ staff were also held. Section 2.4 of the EA outlines key changes to the preferred undertaking which were made as a result of municipal input.

A draft EA was made available to one or more departments (as requested) of the various municipalities for a five-week comment period. The final EA was also circulated to the interested departments of the municipalities along with a letter from MOE requesting they provide comments. The City of Brampton, the Region of York Planning and Development Services Department, York Regional Transit, the City of Vaughan, the Town of Caledon, the Peel Region, York Region Emergency Medical Services and the City of Vaughan Fire and Rescue Service provided comments. The concerns in the comments are outlined in Section 3.2.1 of this Review.

Public consultation

The public, which includes the general public and other stakeholders such as local business owners, land owners and institutions, was provided several opportunities to participate in the EA process. Notices for the project commencement, all Public Information Centres (PICs), the draft EA submission, and the final EA submission were all published in five regionally and locally distributed newspapers. Persons who attended any event or submitted any comments were added to the project mailing list and were then directly mailed all future notices related to the project.

Three PICs were held, each at relevant decision-making steps in the EA process. The first PIC was held in Vaughan in April 2007. For the second and third PICs, in April 2007 and May 2008, a second location and night in Bolton, at the northrn end of the study area was added. Attendees were asked to complete comment forms, which at the first PIC included a survey regarding the importance of route evaluation factors. A dedicated project website was also maintained which continually provided the latest status of the project as well as access to all project documentation. Interested parties were also welcomed to contact the project team by telephone or by a special project e-mail address after the PICs or at any time. MTO provided prompt responses to any comment forms, letters or e-mails received from the public.

The Nashville Area Ratepayers Association (NARA) provided a number of letters to MTO outlining its concerns that the originally proposed dead-end termination of Huntington Road north of the interchange of Highway 427 with Major Mackenzie Drive would force heavy levels of traffic from Huntington Road to turn onto Nashville Road which runs parallel to Major Mackenzie Drive. MTO responded to NARA’s concerns and altered the original plans so that the northrn section of Huntington Road would continue to Major Mackenzie Drive. NARA did not comment on the final EA.

MTO held three general meetings with major landholders north of Major Mackenzie Drive and held specific meetings with some of these landowners. These meetings resulted in the northrly 400 metres of the highway being moved slightly westerly to reduce the amount of land required for the highway.

The draft EA and final EA were made available on the project website and at public library and municipal office locations. Five submissions were received from the public during the first public comment period on the EA.

Aboriginal Community Consultation

In addition to the requirement in the EAA that interested persons be consulted, the Crown must turn its mind to consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have Aboriginal or treaty rights that could be adversely impacted by the proposed undertaking.

The Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (and its predecessor, the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat), several branches of Indian and northrn Affairs Canada, the Union of Ontario Indians, and the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians were contacted during the ToR and EA processes to ascertain which Aboriginal communities may have an interest.

During the process in which the ToR was reviewed and approved, nine different Aboriginal communities were identified as potentially having an interest in the undertaking. Each was notified by MOE in writing in 2005 of the approval of the ToR and asked to identify whether or not they had an interest in the EA process or the potential undertaking. No Aboriginal communities indicated an interest at that time.

When the EA study process commenced in 2006, MTO decided to focus its Aboriginal consultation efforts on the three Aboriginal communities which it determined were most likely to have an interest in the project. These were: the Mississaugas of the New Credit, the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation, and the Six Nations of the Grand River. As indicated by Part III of Appendix C of the EA—Record of Public Consultation, each of these three Aboriginal communities were sent the Notice of Commencement of the EA study, notices of each upcoming PIC, and, after each PIC, copies of the display materials from the particular PIC. Follow-up phone calls were made after some of these mailouts. A meeting to discuss the project was held with both of the Mississaugas of the New Credit and the Six Nations of the Grand River and an invitation was extended to meet with the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation, which instead became a comprehensive phone conversation.

When the draft EA was available, an expanded list of 14 Aboriginal communities was notified by mail on October 1, 2009 of the availability of the draft EA and asked to identify any interest in the project. This list of communities included all signatories of the Williams Treaty (collectively known as the Williams Treaty First Nations (WTFNs)). The additional Aboriginal communities notified were: Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Mnjinkaning (Rama) First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Beausoleil First Nation, Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Huron-Wendat First Nation, Wahta Mohawks First Nation, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation, and the Oneida First Nation.

When the EA was submitted for approval on January 29, 2010, MOE sent personally addressed letters with the proponent’s Notice of Submission of EA attached, to each of the 14 Aboriginal communities asking for comments. A total of three to four follow-up phone calls, and in some cases, e-mails (if the relevant e-mail address was known) were made to each community to verify the package was received and to ask if any comments or a statement of no interest in the project was going to be provided.

The Alderville First Nation indicated it believes there is a high potential for archaeological discoveries and wished to be kept informed of progress. The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte indicated it wishes to be notified if preliminary archaeological investigations found artifacts or burial remains. The Chippewas of Rama indicated no concerns but wish to receive notice of the EA’s progress. The Mississaugas of Scugog Island indicated they do not have the resources to review this matter at this time.

Two of the communities have indicated that they have requested the involvement of the WTFNs Process Coordinator/Interim Negotiator. The WTFN’s coordinator requested a meeting at which MTO could outline the project and the WTFN’s coordinator and any other Aboriginal participants could ask questions or identify any potential impacts of the project on the WTFNs. This meeting was held on April 9, 2010. MTO has reported that it committed at the meeting (see Appendix D—Table 3 of this Review) to updating all WTFNs on the project, including at the detailed design phase and to holding further meetings to discuss archaeological liaisons being utilized if any Aboriginal archaeological sites are found. At this time, the WTFN’s coordinator has not indicated any significant concerns.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

Overall, the ministry is satisfied MTO provided sufficient opportunities for government agencies, local municipalities, the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to provide input into the preparation of the EA. The consultation methods were in accordance with the ToR and consistent with MOE’s Code of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process. Direct mailing to a project mailing list, newspaper notices, PICs and an internet site were used to reach the widest possible interested public. A five-week review period was held on the draft EA with copies made available to the general public at public libraries and government offices. MTO has met with WTFNs and has committed to ongoing engagement and consultation with the WTFNs and any other interested Aboriginal communities, as appropriate. The EA adequately documents the consultation activities and how MTO dealt with the feedback received as a result of them. The EA also illustrates how the participants in the consultation program assisted in the generation, evaluation and refinement of alternatives.

3.1.3 Conclusion

Based on the ministry’s analysis of the contents of the EA compared to the requirement of the ToR and the EAA (see Appendix A) and the ministry’s assessment of the consultation undertaken, the ministry concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with and has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA.

3.2 EA process

EA is a planning process that requires the proponent to identify an existing problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the likely environmental effects of the alternatives, and select a preferred alternative. The documentation of all information required to be contained in an EA and the evaluation and assessment of alternatives in selecting the preferred alternative are essential parts of the EA process.

For this EA study, the purpose was to identify an undertaking or undertakings that will address the congestion problems associated with terminus of Highway 427 at Highway 7, including congestion on Peel Region and York Region north-south arterial roads (especially Highways 50 and 27) to the north of the terminus, and to improve truck accessibility to the Canadian Pacific Vaughan Intermodal Facility. MTO has provided information in the EA which indicates that: many intersections on the north-south arterial roads are at or approaching capacity; traffic on these roads will exceed the capacity of the planned 2021 road network by between 3 and 21%; and that shipping demand increases at the Canadian Pacific Vaughan Intermodal Facility will cause a doubling of truck traffic in the next 15 years.

In the EA, MTO identified several alternatives to the undertaking, that is functionally different ways of addressing the problem or opportunity. The alternatives identified were:

  • Do nothing
  • A combination of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) measures, and improving existing roadways beyond what is currently planned
  • A combination of TDM, TSM, improving existing roadways beyond what is currently planned and new or improved transit services
  • A combination of TDM, TSM, new roadways and transitways and new or improved transit services

After making an inventory of and describing the existing environment, MTO evaluated these alternatives using several criteria within each of five factor headings. The five factor headings were: transportation, economy, socio-economic environment and land use, natural environment, and technical feasibility. The preferred alternative selected was a combination of TDM, TSM and new roadways and transitways and new or improved transit services. The specific new roadway and transitway selected within this alternative is an extension of Highway 427 northward from Highway 7 with protection for a transitway alongside.

The development, assessment and evaluation of alternative methods of carrying out the proposed undertaking occurred in four steps. The first step was to assess whether the extension should proceed generally northward, eastward or westward. This was done using key study objectives and broad categories of environmental effects. It was determined that a generally northward extension should be carried forward.

The assessment and evaluation process in the second, third and fourth steps occurred using an increasingly detailed set of criteria grouped under four main factor headings of socio-economic environment, cultural environment, natural environment, and technical considerations. The Reasoned Argument Method, which is an acceptable method used in many EAs, was the primary evaluation method for each step. This method involves documenting the various relevant advantages and disadvantages of a particular alternative within the specific criteria/measures or factor headings, and assigning a qualitative ranking of the alternative based on comparing it to the other alternatives. An arithmetic method was used to confirm the results of the primary method.

The second step was the selection of the preferred terminus of the extension. Two locations, Langstaff Road just 2 km north of Highway 7 and Nashville Road, about 8 km north of Highway 7, were eliminated through a preliminary evaluation against basic project objectives. The terminus locations given full evaluation were Rutherford Road (about 4 km north), Major Mackenzie Drive (about 6.5 km north) and Mayfield Road (about 9 km north). Using the evaluation criteria within the four factor headings outlined above, Major Mackenzie Drive was selected as preferred terminus.

The third step was the generation and selection of the preferred route of the extension to Major Mackenzie Drive within a generally northward route. Three different route alignments in each of central, slightly western and slightly eastern alignment zones each representing slightly different routes for certain segments and different overall combinations were generated based on a set of guiding principles representing the main factor headings. More detailed criteria and measures within the factor headings were then used to evaluate the three route alignments within the three alignment zones in order to choose the preferred route alignment in each of the alignment zones.

The fourth step was to evaluate the preferred route alignment for each alignment zone against the other two preferred alignments for the other alignment zones. Based on this, the preferred route was chosen. This preferred route is shown in Figure 1 of this Review.

The detailed design and construction of the roadway portions of the preferred alternative will be carried out in accordance with the MTO Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities (MTO Class EA). The transitway infrastructure and related support facilities will be planned, designed and constructed in accordance with the Transit Projects and Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Undertakings Regulation (Ontario Regulation 231/08 made under the EAA) (Transit Regulation) or the MTO Class EA.

3.2.1 Key issues

Several issues about the EA process completed by MTO for the Highway 427 Extension Transportation Corridor were raised by government agencies during the EA review and comment period, some pertaining to documentation of the EA process in the EA document. The EA document should provide a traceable and replicable accounting of the entire decision-making process by which the preferred alternative was selected and its potential environmental effects assessed. Otherwise, there can be uncertainty of whether the most appropriate preferred alternative has been selected and whether all the potential environmental effects of the project have been properly assessed. All of the issues raised about the EA process and the undertaking are included in Table 1—Government Review Team Comment Summary Table in Appendix D of this Review which also contains MTO’s response on the particular item as well as MOE’s level of satisfaction on each issue. The actual comments submitted are provided in Appendix B of this Review. The section below outlines some of the key concerns raised about the EA process. However, it should be noted that none of these issues would impact the selection of the preferred alternative.

The Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) indicated that mapping illustrating heritage resources within the study area (Figure 2 in Appendix H of the EA) was unclear and that a phrase used to identify which cultural heritage resources were significant, “attributes necessary”, was not clearly explained. MTO has responded that other maps in the EA provide the same information as Figure 2 and that it was using the same definition of “attributes necessary” as used in the MTC Guidelines. MTC will receive this Review and will be asked to comment on whether its concerns have been addressed.

MOE staff determined that MTO’s description of the existing environment appears to underestimate the 24-hour background level of acrolein in the air in the study area. MOE cites Environment Canada data from a GTA monitoring station that shows a more accurate statement of the levels is 1.0 µg/m3 versus the level of 0.199 µg/m3 given in the EA, although MOE does note that its Regulation 419 pertaining to air contaminants only pertains to stationary sources of air pollutants, which does not include vehicles travelling on a highway. Therefore, making this change would not change the conclusion regarding acrolein made in the Air Quality Report completed for the EA. This matter requires further discussion.

MOE also had concerns about the EA’s use of data from existing air monitoring stations in Toronto, Etobicoke, Brampton, Simcoe and Windsor to represent current air quality levels reflecting the effects of traffic on existing roads instead of the levels being predicted using modelling. After further assessing the matter, MOE determined that the use of existing data is satisfactory given the specific details of this project.

MOE also had a number of specific concerns related to clear and full information being provided to describe the existing environment, the explanation of how certain information used in the evaluation of alternatives was derived, and the justification of the evaluatory ratings given to certain alternatives in certain phases of the alternative evaluations. All of these items are listed in greater detail in Table 1 of Appendix D of this Review.

For example, in Section 3.3 of the EA—which describes the existing cultural environment—no listing is provided of cultural heritage resources, including cultural heritage landscapes and roadscapes, in the study area. As well, in Appendix A of the EA—Assessment of the Combination of Alternatives to the Undertaking, the alternatives to the undertaking are evaluated for how “reliable” and “stable” a transportation service they will provide. However, the definitions for “reliable” and “stable” are the same, even though the ratings for certain alternatives received for the two items are different, resulting in the assessment of alternatives for these factors being unclear. In the same appendix, there is also little information to support the evaluatory comments for the impacts on individual properties and on agricultural lands. In Table 5-4—Analysis and Evaluation of Terminus Locations—it is unclear why Alternative 1 is rated as the overall lowest preferred alternative and Alternative 3 as the second preferred alternative as a viewing of the ratings given for the four main factor headings would suggest the inverse is more appropriate. In Table 4-4-2—Evaluation of Alternatives to the Undertaking—Economy Factor, the text describing the effects of Alternative 1 clearly indicates it does not have as positive an effect as Alternatives 2 and 3, yet the rating given to all three is the same. A clearer explanation in both cases would be beneficial.

In some cases, MTO has agreed to make textual changes to the EA in order to provide the information or clarification necessary (see Appendix C of this Review for complete list). However, in a number of cases, MTO has not agreed to amend the EA, so further discussions will occur between MOE and MTO. However, MOE is satisfied that the outstanding issues are not of a magnitude that would change the selected preferred alternative.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision-making process, subject to the amendments MTO has agreed to make to the EA. Appendix C of this Review contains a listing of all changes which MTO has agreed to make to the EA. The outstanding items which MOE is still discussing with MTO are not of a significant nature or magnitude that they would change which alternative was selected as the preferred undertaking.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

As discussed in Chapter 6 of the EA and illustrated on Exhibit 6-3 of the EA (see Section 2 of this Review for more details) the proposed undertaking is:

  • A 6.6 km extension of Highway 427 from Highway 7 northward to Major Mackenzie Drive within the City of Vaughan. The highway would feature:
    • six lanes until Rutherford Road and four lanes from that point northward
    • protection for median High-Occupancy Vehicle lanes
    • interchanges at Langstaff Road, Rutherford Road and Major Mackenzie Drive
  • Protection of lands for a transitway along the west side of the extension with transitway stations proposed at each of the three interchanges.

3.3.1 Key issues

Comments regarding the undertaking proposed by MTO were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the EA review and comment period. A number of issues were raised by the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities during the EA Review comment period. These submissions can be found in Appendix B. A summary of all comments, including MTO’s responses and MOE’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1-3 of Appendix D. A discussion of key issues is provided in the section below.

Alignment of Huntington Road

The EA indicates that Huntington Road, a north-south collector road in the centre of the study area running the full length of the study area (see Figure 1), will be split into two sections by the interchange of the proposed Highway 427 extension and Major Mackenzie Road. The EA indicates that its northrn segment would curve easterly just north of the interchanges so that it would intersect with Major Mackenzie Drive about 650 metres to the east of its present alignment.

The Region of York and the City of Vaughan, while both supporting the undertaking, have concerns with this proposed routing because this large easterly swing of Huntington Road eliminates the space required for another collector road to be constructed providing access from Major Mackenzie Drive to the proposed Nashville Heights residential community. This community is proposed to be located north of Major Mackenzie Drive, east of Huntington Road and west of the north-south Canadian Pacific Railway Mactier Railway Line, which is about 700 metres east of the proposed Highway 427 extension. The community is proposed to have 8,000 residents as well as related schools, parks, open spaces and neighbourhood-scaled commercial uses. A traffic report prepared by the land developers identified two road accesses from Major Mackenzie Drive. The land use schedule for the approved City of Vaughan Official Plan Amendment 699 which deals with the Nashville Heights Community, shows two collector roads providing access to the community from Major Mackenzie Drive.

The Region of York and the City of Vaughan propose that Huntington Road only be curved 300 m easterly before it intersects with Major Mackenzie Drive to form an intersect directly across from the northbound, east turning off-ramp of Highway 427 onto Major Mackenzie Drive. This would allow adequate space for the second collector road from Major Mackenzie Drive to the Nashville Heights Community to be constructed.

MTO has responded by reiterating that this issue is not part of this EA process and that, as indicated at meetings with the Region of York and the City of Vaughan, it is committed to working with the municipalities to consider this corridor management issue with respect to any additional access within MTO’s jurisdictional limits. MOE understands that further discussion may occur between the municipalities and MTO on this issue.

Impacts on Oak-Hickory Woodland

MNR commented that MTO should examine any opportunities available to reduce the impacts on a 2.1 hectare woodland located just north of Langstaff Road and identified as FO-19 in Appendix E—Natural Environment. This woodlot is currently identified as needing to be removed for the highway and a storm water management pond. MNR notes the forest type is uncommon and has been suffering long-term decline.

MTO has responded by explaining the need to remove this woodland arose for two reasons. Firstly, a slight realignment of the proposed highway extension was needed to avoid Hydro One’s hydro towers (which are not permitted to be moved). Secondly, a stormwater management pond needed to be relocated to this site in order to reduce the impacts on the proposed concept for development at another quadrant of the Langstaff Road/Highway 427 interchange as was requested by the City of Vaughan and a landowner. MTO does commit to reviewing the location of the pond during the detailed design phase to determine if the impact to the woodland can be reduced and to consulting with TRCA and MNR on the matter. MTO has agreed to amend the description of effects and mitigation portions of the EA to state this.

Salt management

MOE determined that the potential effects of residual road salt on surface water features and fish habitat need to be acknowledged and that specific measures to be employed to minimize those effects should be outlined in quantifiable terms.

MTO has responded by agreeing to amend Section 7.3.1 of the EA to state that it will employ salt management best management practices but to acknowledge that some salt will still be present in highway runoff. That section will also be amended to state that the mitigation and design measures will be used to mitigate and minimize potential water quality impacts from runoff.

Air quality impacts—use of coniferous trees

MOE determined that it is preferable for coniferous trees to be used in most plantings alongside the highway as those trees are a more effective barrier for particulate emissions from vehicular traffic. This would reduce impacts on existing sensitive receptors and future residential development on the western edge of Brampton.

MTO has agreed to amend the EA to acknowledge that coniferous trees provide a more effective barrier to particulate and to state coniferous trees will be considered in developing vegetation mitigation, restoration and enhancement plans.

Transitway access roads and facilities

Metrolinx/GO Transit had concerns that the carpool lot proposed for west of the Rutherford Road interchange should be moved to be situated partly outside the Hydro One right-of-way to ensure that a GO Transit sign and a bus shelter can be constructed. They also had concerns that the transit access road to the proposed Major Mackenzie Drive transitway station will cause bus delays due to its length and indirect routing.

MTO has responded that it understands that Hydro One does permit structures such as a GO Transit sign and bus shelter to be built within the Hydro One right-of-way but just not under the hydro lines, so no relocation of the carpool lot is necessary. As well, MTO indicates that the configuration of the bus access loop can be redesigned or re-located within the property during the Class EA or Transit Regulation process for the transitway.

Median and shoulder design

The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) commented that enforcement bays should be incorporated into the centre median design and that all shoulders need to be full width to facilitate safe enforcement activities and commercial vehicle inspection.

MTO has responded that all stakeholders, including the OPP, will be consulted at the detailed design phase and that all outside shoulder widths will be the 3.0 m and all median shoulder widths will be 2.5 m which are the standards set forth in the Geometric Design Standards section of Ontario Highways Manual.

Impacts on private property

Five different landowners voiced concerns that access to, the use of, or the potential development of their properties will be unduly impacted by the proposed Highway 427 extension, its related infrastructure and re-alignments of nearby roads to accommodate the highway. They request remedies such as different re-routings of area local roads, relocations of stormwater management ponds, re-routing a creek, construction of a longer retaining wall along a road frontage, or the acquisition of their entire property at the value of its highest and best potential land use. They also raised questions such as whether services for their properties can be installed when new roads are constructed or whether warning clauses for impacts such as noise or vibration will need to be inserted into any agreements of purchase and sale they may pursue.

MTO has indicated that all property acquisition will be in accordance with fair market value and MTO’s policy and directives. As well, to address other concerns MTO has proposed changes to a stormwater pond location, agreed to construct substantially longer retaining walls along a property’s road frontage, and explained that a landowner could construct a road across a creek to provide access to an otherwise land-locked parcel. On the issue of different routes for local roads, MTO explained how all other options have been considered but have been determined to be unfeasible. MTO has also outlined that re-routing an existing creek merely to enhance the parcel of land available for development is not in keeping with York Region’s Greenland System policies or with TRCA or MNR policies. MTO also explained that municipal servicing matters are dealt with by the land use planning process, not the EA process for a provincial highway and that noise and vibration warning clauses do not apply to commercial or industrial land uses which are the uses permitted on the lands being discussed by the landowner.

Conclusion

MTO has provided responses to all of the comments received, including those not outlined above. To address some of them, MTO has agreed to make changes to the EA. Those changes are listed in Appendix C of this Review. For other items, MTO has made commitments to address the issue through steps which are outside the EA process (e.g. the Transit Regulation or Class EA process for the transitway, MTO’s land acquisition policies) or through the detailed design process for the highway, most often in consultation with the agency or landowner which brought forth the particular concern. In some cases, particularly for the re-routing of other roads, MTO has provided explanation of how other alternatives were considered, but were determined as not being possible for certain important reasons, such as the requirement for certain spacing between road intersections and the future construction of a grade-separation between Rutherford Road and the Canadian Pacific Railway line.

Most of the issues raised appear to have been satisfactorily addressed by MTO. In a few cases, review agencies will assess the response which MTO has provided during the review and comment period on this Review. If necessary, further discussions will be held between MTO, MOE and the government agencies to resolve the issue before the Minister of the Environment decides whether or not to approve the EA and the undertaking.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the 427 Extension Transportation Corridor EA.

This Review concludes that the EA, taking into consideration the amendments which MTO has agreed to make, has been prepared in accordance with the EAA and the approved ToR. MTO has described in the EA how alternatives were assessed and evaluated in order to determine the preferred alternative. The EA assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and the proposed undertaking and outlines mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure that the potential adverse environmental effects of the undertaking will be minimized.

This Review also concludes that MTO provided sufficient opportunities for government agencies, local municipalities, the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to provide input into the preparation of the EA. The EA adequately documents the consultation activities and how MTO dealt with the feedback received. The EA also illustrates how the participants in the consultation program assisted in the generation, evaluation and refinement of alternatives. Therefore, MOE finds that the consultation methods were in accordance with the ToR and consistent with MOE’s “Codes of Practice: Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process”. MTO is continuing consultation with Aboriginal communities to ensure their concerns, which primarily related to the proper treatment of any archaeological discoveries, are appropriately addressed.

Most of the issues which have been raised by agencies, municipalities and the public have been adequately addressed by MTO. This has been done through changes to the EA or additional commitments being made or through detailed explanation being provided. There are a few outstanding issues which need to be further discussed prior to the Minister making a decision on the proposed 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 he/she believes 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.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, MTO will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 9.1 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. Provincially, these approvals may include:

  • Permits to Take Water under Ontario Water Resources Act to de-water construction areas
  • Ontario Regulation 347 to dispose of any contaminated materials which may be identified during contaminated site investigations

Several approvals from local municipalities will likely be necessary. As a provincial agency, MTO does not require municipal approvals but does agree to obtain them in most cases. These will likely include:

  • Building permits for transitway stations
  • TRCA approvals for works within floodplain
  • Stormwater management and sewer discharge approvals
  • Noise by-law exemptions
  • Temporary construction access permits

No federal approvals, including any under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, are anticipated to be required for the project. None of the watercourses to be bridged are navigable and a watercourse crossing review done in accordance with the MTO/ Department of Fisheries and Oceans/MNR Protocol (2006) determined that the likely construction effects on the watercourses do not require an authorization under the Fisheries Act, although this will need to be verified at the detailed design stage.

None of the approvals above can be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

An amendment procedure is set forth in Section 9.2 of the EA. This procedure would be used if the EA is approved and an amendment related to the transportation corridor or the EA is required as a result of information obtained during subsequent design phases. Any unforeseen changes to the Minister-approved undertaking will be reviewed by MTO prior to any changes being carried out. As part of the review, MTO will determine the significance of the change in terms of its potential effect to the environment, a stakeholder (including the public), a commitment made in the EA, or a condition of approval.

If MTO determines that a proposed change is not significant, the change will be documented in a Design and Construction Report and will be made available for public review. For any significant changes, the amending procedure will be consistent with MTO’s Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Transportation Facilities, 2000 (Class EA). This will include the preparation of a Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) and formal public and agency consultation. The “bump-up” provisions in the Class EA will apply to any changes identified in the TESR, but not the undertaking as identified in the EA, if it is approved.

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.