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 December 9, 2014. 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

Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and the Regional Municipality of Peel

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes the creation of a new natural waterfront park along the eastern Mississauga waterfront that will establish ecological habitat and public linkages and recreation opportunities.

When

EA submitted: May 2, 2014
Comment period: May 2–June 21, 2014
Ministry Review comment period: January 5–February 9, 2015

Where

The proposed undertaking is located in the City of Mississauga and directly adjacent to the western boundary of the City of Toronto. The total footprint area of the waterfront park will be approximately 33 hectares.

Why

The proponents are seeking to create a new naturalized habitat area and establish a public access link to and along this area of the Lake Ontario waterfront, which is currently inaccessible.

Conclusions

The Ministry Review concludes that the EA was prepared in accordance with the approved Terms of Reference and contained sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

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 of the Environment and Climate Change’s (MOECC) 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. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

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

On July 27, 2012, the proponents submitted the Lakeview Waterfront Expansion ToR to the MOECC for approval. The ToR stated that the EA would be prepared in accordance with Section 6(2)(c) of the EAA. The ToR established the rationale for creating the waterfront park.

The ToR outlined the process the proponents would follow to assess alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking; to assess environmental effects and provide mitigation measures and to consult with the public, government agencies and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA.

The ToR was made available for a theirty day public and government agency comment period which ended on August 26, 2012. During this time all interested persons, government agencies and Aboriginal communities could review and provide comments about the proposed ToR to the MOECC for consideration. Comments were received from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Ontario Power Generation, and the Cities of Toronto and Mississauga.

The Minister approved the Lakeview Waterfront Connection ToR on November 28, 2012.

1.2 Environmental assessment

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

On May 2, 2014, the proponents submitted their EA titled Lakeview Waterfront Expansion. The proponents are seeking approval for a 33 acre waterfront park along the eastern Mississauga waterfront that will establish an ecological habitat and provide a public linkage and recreation opportunities. The EA comment period ended on June 20, 2014.

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

1.3 Ministry review

The EAA requires the MOECC to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the MOECC’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to document the MOECC’s findings about whether or not 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, 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 and 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 by the proponents. During the Review comment period, anyone may submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone may 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 may 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 has been published in the following local newspapers indicating that the Review has been completed and is available for a five-week comment period:

  • Mississauga News This Week
  • Mississauga News
  • Etobicoke Guardian

Copies of the Review and the EA have been placed in the same public record locations where the EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and identified Aboriginal communities.

The proposed undertaking

Background

The area located at the municipal border of the Cities of Mississauga and Toronto has long been identified by both municipalities to be redeveloped through planning documents, public engagement and scientific studies. The Lakeview Waterfront Connection Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study), funded by the Region, was undertaken by CVC and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in 2011 to better understand the nature of the degraded local ecosystem and identify improvements to habitat function, public access and recreational activities along the waterfront in the City of Mississauga. Members of the public, interest groups, landowners and Aboriginal communities were consulted throughout the development of the Feasibility Study.

In addition to the Region’s Feasibility Study, CVC developed the Lake Ontario Integrated Shoreline Strategy (LOISS), initiated in 2009, which identifies priority areas for restoration and creation of aquatic and terrestrial habitat to enhance existing features and functions. The Project study area falls within the LOISS priority areas, and as such will directly contribute to aquatic and terrestrial habitat improvements consistent with the LOISS objectives.

Finally, the City of Mississauga, agencies and the public undertook a visioning process which resulted in the “Inspiration Lakeview: A Vision” (2011) document. Inspiration Lakeview is part of the City of Mississauga’s long-range community planning which provides a new vision for the transformation of the eastern Mississauga waterfront that includes “a green water’s edge”: new lakefront land south of the existing G.E. Boothe Wastewater Treatment Facility allowing for new natural heritage, habitat opportunities and the relocation of the Waterfront Trail from Lakeshore Road to the Lake Ontario shoreline. Another element of the Inspiration Lakeview vision is “a green corridor” which envisions increased opportunities for recreational activities, a naturalized Serson Creek and improved scenic views.

As a result of the Feasibility Study, which was completed in November 2011, CVC and the Region initiated the EA for the Project. Further, the Project has been identified as a key step in implementing the Inspiration Lakeview vision and directly contributing to the objectives set out in the Strategy.

The Region is a co-proponent given its interests in the area, such as the G.E. Boothe Wastewater Treatment Facility, proximity of key infrastructure and water lots extending out from the shoreline within the Project Study Area.

The majority of the Project Study Area is located within CVC’s jurisdiction and as such it was identified as a co-proponent and the Project Lead. TRCA owns the Arsenal Lands and Marie Curtis Park immediately east of the Project Study Area. As TRCA has extensive experience with the planning and implementation associated with large scale shoreline enhancement and wetland creation projects it managed the Environmental Assessment on behalf of CVC and the Region.

Description of the proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is the creation of a waterfront ecological park on the shoreline of Lake Ontario on the eastern boundary of the City of Mississauga. Specifically, the proponents are seeking approval for:

  • Creation of up to 33 hectares of terrestrial habitat including meadow, beach, forest, open wetland, treed swamp and rocky island
  • The use of approximately 2.0 million m3 of re-used clean fill (generated by nearby municipal and private capital projects) to fill the shoreline area and create the waterfront park. This fill will be tested/assessed by the proponents to ensure that it meets MOECC standards before it is accepted at the site. The standards are documented in the MOECC publication “Fill Quality Guide and Good Management Practices for Shore Infilling in Ontario (2011)”, which was referenced in the EA as a background study.
  • Key components of the Project include:
    • Armour stone revetments
    • Cobble beach
    • Offshore islands (headlands)
    • Extensions to Applewood and Serson Creek and their outlets to Lake Ontario
    • Upstream re-routing of Serson Creek
    • Serson Creek stormwater channel habitat enhancements
    • River levee systems
    • Naturalized habitat features including meadow, upland forest, wetland and treed swamp
    • Aquatic habitat features
    • Recreational spaces including primary and possibly secondary and tertiary trails

See Figure 1 for a map of the study area and Figure 2 for the description of the preferred alternative.

The EA assessed alternatives to the undertaking to address the opportunity, which included the creation of a new waterfront park on existing land or new land (i.e. infill the Lake). A rationale was provided and the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative were assessed through each of the Project objectives: Naturalization, Access, Compatibility, Coordination and Fiscal Viability. It was concluded that the preferred alternative would be the establishment of a new park on new land. As such, the proponents identified five alternative methods to undertake the Project, which include different spatial footprints and configurations maintaining the required design elements, such as multi-use recreational trail to provide access to and along the waterfront, opportunities for passive recreation and naturalized ecosystem components that were appropriate for the north shore of Lake Ontario. Based on input from a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) and the Project Technical team, five alternative footprints were generated. These included a revetment (large interlocking quarried blocks forming a steep wall from the lake bed to the top of the landform), a headland beach (cobble beaches facing the direction of net wave energy) and three island beach footprints (same concept as a headland beach however the headlands are replaced with offshore islands). The footprints were assessed and evaluated against the same objectives that were used to determine the preferred alternative.

The impacts of each alternative concept on the surrounding environment were assessed, and included a variety of criteria for each design objectives (i.e. Naturalization, Access, Compatibility, Coordination and Fiscal Viability). Some of these criteria included: the potential change to the shoreline character, potential for public access to the water’s edge, construction impacts on traditional uses of lands by First Nations and Métis communities, consistency with the priorities and objectives of previous planning documents and studies prepared prior to the EA.

With regards to climate change, the proponents have assessed the potential impacts on the undertaking as a result of climate change. The proponents have considered climate change during the selection of the preferred alternative, and have documented the proposed impacts in its assessment. For example, the proponents have indicated that climate change has the potential to increase the size and frequency of large flood events, influence winter ice cover conditions and potentially influence long-term average lake levels in Lake Ontario. In addition, climate change has the potential to result in increased flooding upstream of Lake Ontario in both Applewood and Serson Creeks. Mitigation measures have been proposed to ensure that impacts as a result of climate change will be minimized. The EA documents that the wetlands will be designed with varying depthes to allow the wetlands to continue to function over a wide range of lake levels and be able to accommodate higher flows and levels of both Applewood and Serson Creeks during extreme flow events. In addition, the construction and use of a water control structure to regulate wetland water levels will ensure that the wetland areas can sustain a period of low water levels and maintain the features that have been implemented in those areas. These features provide passive elements in the design to allow the project to adapt to climate change.

The proponents also document its commitment to monitoring and undertaking an adaptive environmental management approach to ensure that any environmental and climate changes prior, during and after implementation are incorporated into the undertaking. For example, the EA identifies the need to respond to changes in local weather patterns and long term climate change that may alter lake water levels and the frequency and duration of inundation of the naturalized features, shoreline features; and/or the severity and frequency of extreme storm events. The continuous monitoring of the flows and river discharges during detailed design and construction as well as performance monitoring of the built out phases of the project will identify any significant changes in environmental conditions that might influence the design and to allow flexibility in the design or through the amending procedures to address these issues.

If EAA approval is granted, the proponents will be required to complete the proposed undertaking in accordance with the EA and any conditions of approval. In addition, the proponents must still obtain all other legislative approvals required for the undertaking.

Land ownership

It is anticipated that the waterfront park lands and sediment management area will be owned, operated and managed by CVC. Existing lands directly affected by the proposed undertaking predominately include public lands owned by the City of Toronto, the Region of Peel and TRCA. The proponents will require up to 33 hectares of Lake Ontario waterbed to construct the Project. Lake Ontario within the Project Study Area is considered unalienated Crown land and as such is owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). CVC will be seeking a disposition of this land from the MNRF if the EA is approved. At this time, no land owners (i.e. City of Toronto, MNRF) have any significant concerns with the Project which will prohibit the proponents from acquiring any public land to construct the waterfront park.

Existing and Proposed Land Uses

Existing land uses affected by the undertaking are primarily recreational, including Marie Curtis Park to the East and the Arsenal Lands, both owned by the TRCA. The majority of the study area is occupied by the Region of Peel’s G.E. Boothe Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). There are no existing residential uses in this area. Proposed land uses include open space within the newly created waterfront park; recreational lands and waterfront trails, cobble beach area, wetlands, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

Project implementation

The Project is anticipated to be constructed in phases and scheduled to be completed within 7-10 years after approvals and permits are received. The Project will be divided in four or five construction cells (depending on availability of access to adjacent to Ontario Power Generation water lots) and will be constructed in two stages. The first stage is the land creation itself, which is the infilling of the lake area to create the land mass. The second stage is the construction of the park features themselves, including a waterfront trail, landscaping, interpretive sign installation, pedestrian bridges, wetland feature and forest buffer.

Figure 1: Study area

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

Figure 2: Lakeview Waterfront Connection preferred alternative

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

Results of the ministry review

The Ministry 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 MOECC coordinated an analysis of the EA with the Government Review Team (GRT) that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The MOECC has concluded that the EA followed the framework set out in the approved ToR and addresses each of the commitments set forthe in the ToR. The MOECC has also concluded the required components of the EAA have been met.

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. Several methods of consultation were used by the proponents throughout the EA process and included meetings with the GRT, meetings with the Community Liaison Committee, public open houses, site vicinity and on-site study areas tours, media releases, newsletters, and maintaining a project website. The intent of the consultation plan was to provide information on the project, obtain input, and address comments.

The MOECC is satisfied that the level of consultation undertaken with the public and GRT was appropriate for this proposed undertaking. This included providing an opportunity to government reviewers and other key stakeholders to provide comments on a draft version of the EA prior to submission.

The EA adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of the various consultation activities/events.

Once the EA is submitted to the MOECC, additional MOECC driven consultation occurs during the seven-week EA comment period. The GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities were provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the MOECC on whether the requirements of the ToR have been met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the MOECC during the EA comment period were forwarded to the proponents for a response. Summaries of all comments received along with the proponents’ responses are included in Tables 1 and 2. Copies of the GRT’s submissions are also available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. This included presubmission discussions, technical meetings with MOECC staff and key members of the GRT and through providing an opportunity to review of the draft EA. Many of the comments provided to the proponents from the GRT on the draft EA were incorporated into the final EA. A summary of the comments provided on the draft EA and the proponents’ responses can be found in Volume 2 of the Environmental Assessment Study Report document—Consultation Activities.

Members of the GRT were provided copies of the final EA for their review during the sevenweek comment period. All comments received by the MOECC were forwarded to the proponents for a response. A summary the comments and the proponents’ responses can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

Comments were received by MNRF and Ontario Power Generation; as well as by the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga. No other municipal, provincial or federal agencies provided comments on the EA.

Provincial agencies

As mentioned previously, the MNRF owns the Lake Ontario lakebed, considered as Crown Land, that is proposed to infilled by the Project. As such, the proponents will be seeking approval from MNRF for the Crown Land through an approval under the Public Lands Act. As MNRF’s mandate includes the protection of great lakes and of terrestrial and fish habitat and fisheries, MNRF would only support the undertaking once it was satisfied that the undertaking would not significantly impact the lake and its existing habitat. The MNRF provided comments relating to the assessment of alternatives, and specifically how the size of the preferred alternative selected would relate to impacts on species at risk and fisheries and fish habitat. MNRF raised similar concerns at the ToR and draft EA stages, but was more specific in their concerns on potential impacts as a result of the selection of a large footprint as the preferred alternative. The proponents, MNRF and MOECC staff met several times following the submission of the EA in an attempt to address the outstanding concerns. MNRF indicated that they are satisfied that their concerns have been adequately addressed. The details of the consultation efforts between MNRF and the proponents can be found in Section 3.2.1 of this Review document.

OPG raised a minor issue indicating that one of the figures in the EA was not representative of the current Inspiration Lakeview Master planning process (which is currently underway), especially with regards to the alignment and characteristics of Serson Creek located within the adjacent OPG lands. The proponents indicated that further refinements to the width of the Creek will be refined through consultations with OPG. OPG indicated that this response was satisfactory and that it has no further outstanding concerns with the Project.

Refer to Section 3.3 of this Review for further discussion of the issues raised by the GRT and how they were addressed by the proponents.

Municipal agencies

The City of Mississauga identified its commitment to be involved with the proponents through the process to ensure that the Project remains consistent with the Inspiration Lakeview Master Plan which is currently underway. The City of Mississauga confirmed support for the Project and the proponents have indicated that they will continue to involve the City of Mississauga during any consultation activities prior to implementation.

The City of Toronto requested to remain involved with the planning of the undertaking through detailed design and implementation. The City of Toronto also requested that the proponents commit to include representation from the City on the existing Community Liaison Committee. MOECC will consider a condition on the Minister’s decision on the EA requiring the proponents to include the City of Toronto on the Community Liaison Committee discussions during detailed design. Further, the City of Toronto raised several comments relating to the Project and its possible impacts to the existing Marie Curtis Park. Comments relating to parking were expressed, as well as impacts to the waterfront trails and possible restrictions to public access and beach areas during construction. Finally, the City expressed concerns with maintenance of the new parkland and its responsibility for this land after implementation. The proponents noted all of the City of Toronto’s comments and have agreed to keep the City involved in all consultation activities and during the development of any communication strategies to manage communication with all interested stakeholders during detailed design and through to implementation. The City of Toronto has indicated in a response to MOECC that it is satisfied that all of its concerns have been adequately addressed by the proponents.

Public consultation

The proponent described the consultation process it undertook in Chapter 10 of the EA and in Appendices E- Consultation Activities. The proponents used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including: Open Houses; meetings with local business and land owners; site-vicinity and on-site study areas tours; media releases; presentations at the Community Liaison Committee meetings; newsletters; and maintaining a project website.

The Community Liaison Committee was established in 2012 to consult with members of the community and local groups, associations, organizations and officials to provide community input and advice on how the project would be visualized.

In total, the proponents had three meetings with the Community Liaison Committee during the development of the ToR and the EA. The proponents met with the Community Liaison Committee at each stage of the EA process to discuss the results of consultation activities and any public comments received.

Throughout the development of the EA, the proponents held three public open houses/information centres to discuss the project and to answer any questions from the stakeholders in attendance. The proponents hosted sessions at two different locations within the City of Mississauga on January 22, April 3 and November 30, 2013. Project Team members were in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussions. Display boards and information were made available at each session. The approved ToR and draft work plans were also made available for public review and comment. In addition, the proponents held an additional 9 direct community engagement sessions at functions and events between June-October 2013 to further provide the community information about the undertaking and answer questions from the public.

Notifications were provided in advance for each public information session. Invitations were sent to GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities, via direct mail or e-mail. As required by the approved ToR, the proponents published its Notices of Commencement, notice of public information sessions and submission of the EA in the local newspapers and updated its website at various points during the development of the EA to the public informed. The Notice of Commencement and first public information session notification was placed in local newspapers (Mississauga News This Week, Mississauga News and the Etobicoke Guardian) between January 3 and 11, 2013. The second and third public information session notices were sent on March 19 and 20, 2013 and between October 30 and November 4, 2013, respectively. The proponents also made copies of the Draft EA and its supporting documents available on the Project website to members of the public on December 12, 2013. This provided an opportunity for anyone interested in submitting comments directly to the proponents for its consideration as it finalized the EA. The Notice of Submission of the Final EA was published on May 2, 2014. A contact database was maintained throughout the EA study to contact interested public and key stakeholders of study issues and events. The contact database was updated after each public information session to include individuals that signed-in with their contact information on the distribution list.

Following formal submission the EA on May 2, 2014, no comments were received from any members of the public.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the requirement in the EAA that interested persons be consulted, the Crown and the proponents must also initiate consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the proposed undertaking. The Crown has a duty to consult where a contemplated action by the Crown may adversely affect Aboriginal or treaty rights. The Crown may delegate procedural aspects of the duty to the proponent.

As a result, a list of Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that may be adversely impacted by the proposed undertaking or that may otherwise be interested in the proposed undertaking was developed and those communities were provided with information on the EA throughout the process. Information was provided to:

  • Alderville First Nation
  • Beausoleil First Nation
  • Fort William First Nation
  • Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
  • Chippewas of Mnjikaning (RAMA) First
  • Nation
  • Curve Lake First Nation
  • Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council
  • Hiawatha First Nation
  • Huron-Wendat First Nation
  • Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation
  • Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
  • Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
  • Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation
  • Moose Deer Point First Nation
  • Nishnawbe Aski Nation
  • Peel Aboriginal Network
  • Six Nations of the Grand River: Elected Band Council
  • Six Nations of the Grand River: Lands and Resources
  • Williams Treaty First Nations

Information was also provided to Métis Nation of Ontario.

Ontario’s Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada were contacted with respect to the development of the list of communities.

During the preparation of the EA, the Aboriginal communities were kept informed on the progress of the EA through information emails and notices and were invited to public open houses on January 22, April 3 and November 30, 2013. They also received a copy of the Draft EA to review and provide comments on.

The proponents received correspondence from the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, both of whom requested meetings with the proponents. The proponents held a meeting with the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation on January 15, 2013 to discuss ways in which the proponents will continue to involve the community in developing the project. A meeting with the Métis Nation of Ontario was scheduled for March 7, 2013 but was never held due to scheduling conflicts. Attempts were made to reschedule, but a meeting never transpired.

Responses to public information session notices were also received by the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation and the Chippewas of Georgina Island, who both indicated that they be kept informed of Project developments and to be involved during the entire EA process. Further details of the consultation undertaken by the proponents can be found in Chapter 4 of the EA and in Appendix A-D- Record of Consultation.

In May 2014 the final EA was provided to the previously contacted Aboriginal communities. The MOECC followed up with each of the Aboriginal Communities to solicit any comments that they had. Curve Lake First Nation and Hiawatha First Nation indicated that they are satisfied with the EA document and have no comments. To date no other correspondence or comments have been provided to MOECC from any other Aboriginal community.

both a Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment was completed for the Project Study Area. The conclusions of the assessments indicated that all previously disturbed areas do not possess any cultural resources and do not require any further assessments. The undisturbed areas were subjected to a Stage 2 Archaeological assessment and the analysis concluded that these areas also do not possess any archaeological or heritage resources, and theus no additional assessments would be required.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

The EAA requires that the proponents consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of that consultation. The MOECC is satisfied that the proponents appropriately carried out the consultation plan that was outlined in the approved ToR.

Overall, the MOECC believes that the proponents provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. Concerns raised by the public and other stakeholders were considered during the preparation of the final EA.

The EA documents the consultation methods that were undertaken by the proponents to engage government reviewers, Aboriginal communities and members of the public during the development of the EA. The EA discusses the concerns raised and how they were addressed or will be addressed if the EA is approved.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The MOECC is satisfied that the consultation carried out meets the requirements of the EAA and is in accordance with the approved ToR.

3.2 EA process

EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the potential effects of those alternatives against select criteria and then select a preferred alternative.

In general, the proponents followed a logical and transparent decision making process that was outlined in the EA. Refer to Appendix A of this Review for the MOECC’s analysis of how the EA met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

The evaluation of alternatives in the EA consisted of:

  • Describing the problem or purpose
  • Describing and providing a rationale for the alternative methods identified in the approved ToR which included alternative landfill footprints and alternative leachate treatment options
  • Describing the environment potentially affected by each alternative within the study area described in the EA
  • Predicting and evaluating environmental effects for each alternative taking into account mitigation measures (net effects)
  • Conducting a comparative evaluation, including taking into account the relative importance of the evaluation criteria which was established with input from the public and government agencies. The comparative analysis discussed advantages and disadvantages. A reasoned argument or trade off method was used to identify a preferred alternative
  • Identifying and providing a rationale for selecting the preferred undertaking

3.2.1 Key issues

Through the review of the final EA, staff from the MOECC determined whether or not the proponents followed the EA process and have incorporated the commitments in the approved ToR into the final EA that was submitted for review and a decision. Ministry staff have concluded that there are no key issues with the proponents’ EA planning process for the proposed Project.

The MNRF raised concerns with the proponents assessment of potential alternatives and the selection of the preferred alternative. The MNRF asserted that the proponents should have assessed smaller alternative footprints for the undertaking, resulting in less overall impacts to the area. The MNRF contended that the alternative methods only differed in footprint shape, and that its size of approximately 30 hectares is consistent throughout the assessed alternatives. The MNRF also stated that the proponents should have assessed alternatives for half the size (or smaller) to determine if they are feasible while maintaining all of the components required to make the Project viable.

The proponents responded to these concerns and indicated that smaller footprints were screened out early in the process as they did not meet the five objectives that the undertaking, which included naturalization (creating habitat areas) and access to public areas. The MNRF requested rationale for screening out smaller footprints, including comments made by the proponents relating to financial concerns, viability and objectives.

Staff from the MNRF, MOECC and the proponents met on October 8, 2014 to discuss the issues. The proponents and MNRF then had a follow up meeting on November 7, 2014. The outcome of these discussions was documented in correspondence from the proponents in which they agree to the recommendations put forward by the MNRF to commit to assessing coldwater fisheries impacts during the detailed design phase. The MNRF then provided written confirmation that they had no further concerns with regards to the alternatives assessment component of the EA, but did request that conditions be placed on the Minister’s decision to require the proponents to include MNRF staff in discussions during detailed design and to make a concerted effort to assess the possibility of reducing the footprint of the Project while maintaining its objectives. The MOECC will consider such conditions in its decision on the EA.

For more information on these issues and the responses provided by the proponents, please refer to Appendix C and Table 1 of this review.

No public comments were received on the final EA with regards to the EA process.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the MOECC, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with the proponent’s decision making process.

The EA contains an explanation of the opportunity that prompted the EA. The proponents considered a reasonable range of alternative methods to the undertaking and evaluated them in a defined study area that took into consideration the EAA’s broad definition of the environment.

The EA provides a description of the potentially affected environment in the study area and identifies potential impacts of the alternatives. The EA also includes monitoring and contingency plans to ensure any potential negative impacts of the undertaking are minimized.

The EA adequately describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking to the environment based on the potential environmental effects. Requirements of the EAA for consultation with the public, GRT and Aboriginal communities have been met.

The MOECC is satisfied that the EA was completed in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is described in section 6.0 of the EA (see also section 2 of this Review) and was evaluated based on the net impacts of each alternative and the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of the environment was used to evaluate the potential effects of the 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. Concerns were raised by the GRT and can be found in Appendix B of this Review. A summary of all comments, including the proponents’ responses and the MOECC’s level of satisfaction can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

Shoreline creation/impacts

The MNRF raised concerns regarding the potential impacts to the existing shoreline and possible impacts due to the shoreline treatments being considered by the proponents. MNRF was concerned with the material size being proposed for the preferred alternative and how different treatments will change the characteristics of the shoreline significantly. Furthermore, the MNRF indicated that the shoreline treatments being proposed for the project may impact spawning habitat for certain fish species. The MNRF requested the proponents provide a better explanation of the shoreline treatments and how its design will minimize natural environmental impacts.

The proponents provided responses to MNRF on these concerns, which outlined its commitments to further revise the design of the shoreline and its characteristics in the detailed design stage. The proponents also indicate that there is flexibility within the design and that the characteristics of the beach and shoreline will be finalized in consultation with MNRF. MNRF indicated that this response satisfied their concerns and had no further input on this issue at this time.

A MNRF approval under the Public Lands Act and a permit under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act will be required prior to the implementation of the Project. The proponents will need to ensure that potential impacts to the shoreline are minimized and the lake characteristics are maintained in order to construct the undertaking in Lake Ontario.

Wetlands creation

MNRF also raised issues relating to the wetlands creation proposed by the proponents and how certain aspects of this creation, including carp control structures, may in fact negatively impact the fish communities that the project is intending to benefit in the first place. Furthermore, MNRF has indicated that the wetland slopes documented in the EA and in the figures are not consistent with existing similar coastal wetlands in the area. As such, MNRF requested the proponents further explain the rationale and ensure that the wetlands being created for this undertaking will be consistent with others and will provide an overall positive benefit to fish communities.

The proponents responded to this concern by indicating that the control structures are only being put in place to ensure that vegetation remains in the area. The proponents contend that only if wetland vegetation is disappearing will the control structures be used. This will ensure that the area remains beneficial to fish communities and serve its purpose as a wetland. With regards to slopes, the proponents have confirmed to MNRF that the figures that were referenced were for illustrative purposes only and do not accurately reflect the final design of the wetland area.

MNRF has confirmed its satisfaction with the responses provided by the proponents on these issues. As mentioned above, as permits and approvals are required from MNRF to construct the Project, the proponent will need to work with MNRF to ensure that impacts are minimized and mitigated, and that any wetlands created will have an overall positive impact on the area.

Fisheries/fish habitat

In addition to the issues raised above regarding wetland creation and the possible impacts on fish communities, the MNRF raised issues relating to the assessment of impacts on fish communities themselves, and the apparent misrepresentation of the characteristics of the fish habitat in the EA. The MNRF indicated that the EA did not adequately represent the fish habitat present in this area of Lake Ontario, and that the proponents appear to focus its assessment on protecting warm and cool water fisheries. MNRF contend that the area where the Project will be implemented is primarily categorized in the Management of Great Lakes Fisheries Plan (1997) as cold water habitat, and as such cold water fish species should be identified as the primary species that the EA and the modelling should be assessing. The MNRF emphasized that special attention should be placed on the benefits and impacts on cold water species.

At the October 8, 2014 meeting held between MNRF, the proponents and MOECC, this issue was discussed. The proponent agreed to commit to ensuring that cold water species were taken into consideration during the detailed design of the wetlands aspect of the undertaking. The submissions for the permit to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act will also take this into consideration, and will only be issued by MNRF when it is satisfied that the proponents have adequately assessed the potential impacts to the appropriate fish species that are present in the area.

The EA documents a number of Species at Risk that have been identified in the Project Study Area. However, these species are predominately birds and fauna, and no fish species at risk were identified. The proponents confirmed in the EA that the Project may require both a federal permit from Environment Canada and/or Fisheries and Oceans Canada under the Species at Risk Act if the Project is determined to affect Species at Risk and a permit from MNRF under the Endangered Species Act if there are impacts for works in identified Species at Risk habitats. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and MNRF have indicated to MOECC in which they indicate that they are satisfied that any issues regarding Species at Risk will be addressed through the permitting stage.

3.3.2 Conclusion

The proponents have provided responses to all comments received, including those not detailed above. All comments and the proponents’ responses are located in Table 1 of this Review.

Ministry staff are satisfied that the proponents have met the requirements of the ToR and EAA for the components of the EA raised in section 3.3.1 above, as well as those raised in Table 1.

The MOECC is also satisfied that the proposed undertaking will be designed and operated to comply with MOECC’s standards and that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the EA, through conditions of approval, or through additional work that must be carried out by the proponents in support of future approval applications, if the EA is approved.

A final review period and a recommendation to the Minister about this EA will follow the publishing of this Review. If the EA is approved by the Minister, conditions specific to the proposed undertaking may be proposed to ensure the environment remains protected.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the MOECC’s analysis of the proponents’ EA for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection.

This Review concludes that the EA complies with the requirements of the approved ToR and has been prepared in accordance with the EAA. The EA has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking.

The Review concludes that the EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects of the proposed undertaking.

The MOECC is satisfied that the proponents provided sufficient opportunities for the GRT, public, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised by the GRT have been addressed by the proponents or a commitment has been made to address them through additional work that will be completed as part of future approval requirements.

If the proposed undertaking is approved under the EAA, there are several standard conditions that are included in an approval such as the requirement to conduct and report the results of compliance monitoring and to develop a protocol for responding to complaints received during all the phases of the undertaking. There may also be specific conditions imposed on this proposed undertaking if warranted.

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 MOECC about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, MOECC 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 may make one of the following decisions:

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

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

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

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the proponents will still require other approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. A Federal EA is not required for this Project as the undertaking does not fall within the triggers for physical activities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 that would require a Federal EA. Section 1.5 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • Federal approval by Fisheries and Oceans Canada under the Fisheries Act for potential harm to fish habitat
  • Federal approval by Transport Canada under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the creation of land within a navigable waterway
  • MNRF approval under the Public Lands Act for placement of fill within the bed of Lake Ontario (owned by MNRF)
  • MNRF permit under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act for construction in Lake Ontario
  • Permits under section 27 of the Endangered Species Act for the protection and recovery of provincial species at risk
  • Conservation authorities Act and Permits from Toronto Region Conservation Authority and Credit Valley Conservation for development along the shoreline and alterations to watercourses
  • Site Plan approvals and possible heritage assessment from the City of Mississauga

These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted. Furthermore, EAA approval does not imply that other approvals will be granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed EA

The EA Code of Practice identifies a process to address minor and major changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. Any proposed change to the undertaking would have to be considered in the context of the EAA and any environmental assessment requirements met before any change to the undertaking can be implemented.

Public record locations

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

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

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

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Halton-Peel District Office
4145 north Service Road, Suite 300
Burlington, Ontario
L7L 6A3

Toronto Public Library, Alderwood Branch
2 Orianna Drive
Toronto, Ontario
M8W 4Y1

Lakeview Library
1110 Atwater Avenue
Mississauga, Ontario
L5E 1M9

Toronto Public Library, Long Branch
3500 Lake Shore Boulevard West
Toronto, Ontario
M8W 1N6

Port Credit Library
20 Lakeshore Road East
Mississauga, Ontario
L5G 1C8

Toronto Public Library, New Toronto
110 Eleventhe Street
Toronto, Ontario
M8V 3G5

CVC Administration Office
1255 Old Derry Road
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 6R4

Mississauga Office of the City Clerk
Mississauga City Hall
300 City Centre Drive, 2nd
Mississauga, Ontario
L5B 3C1

Toronto City Clerk’s Office
Toronto City Hall
100 Queen Street West, 13th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2N2

Region of Peel Clerk’s Department
10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A
Brampton, Ontario
L6T 4B9

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending February 9, 2015 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 and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, floor 12A
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Lakeview Waterfront Connection Environmental Assessment
Attention: Adam Sanzo, 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.