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

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was November 18, 2011. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

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

Executive summary

The Regional Municipality of York

Who

The Regional Municipality of York

What

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

A four-lane urban arterial roadway extension of Morningside Avenue from McNicoll Avenue north to Steeles Avenue; a widening of Steeles Avenue to a six-lane urban roadway from east of Tapscott Road to east of Ninthe Line; a widening of Ninthe Line to a four-lane urban roadway from Steeles Avenue to the south limit of the Box Grove Development Area; and, new ramps at the Donald Cousens Parkway and Highway 407 Interchange to provide access onto Highway 407 from the south. The undertaking also includes a new crossing of the Neilson Tributary and replacement of the existing Steeles Avenue crossings of the Rouge River and Morningside Tributary.

When

Amended EA submitted: July 19, 2011
Ministry Review comment period: December 2, 2011 to January 13, 2012

Where

Southeast Markham and northeast Toronto (Scarborough)

Why

To address the capacity deficiencies between southeast portion of the Town of Markham and northeast portion of the City of Toronto

Conclusions

The proposed transportation improvements will benefit the communities the Town of Markham and the developed areas and the proposed to be developed areas of the north-eastern are of the City of Toronto.

The proposed mitigation methods and contingencies will ensure that any potential negative impacts will be minimized and managed.

Based on the government Review of the EA, the ministry has concluded that the EA has been carried out in accordance with section 6(2) (c) of the Environmental Assessment Act. However, the ministry has also concluded that there is an outstanding issue of jurisdiction and York’s ability to implement the undertaking as contemplated in the amended EA.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision making. This is done 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 the EAA, approval under the Act 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 a problem or opportunity; evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives; and, select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

1.1 Terms of reference

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

On July 13, 2004, the Minister approved the Markham Bypass Extension from Highway 407 to Morningside Avenue ToR. The ToR set out how the Regional Municipality of York (York) would evaluate environmental effects, assess alternatives and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the rationale for addressing the capacity deficiencies between the southeast portion of the Town of Markham (Markham) and northeast portion of the City of Toronto (Toronto). The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

1.2 Original environmental assessment

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

On December 23, 2005, York submitted the Transportation Improvements in the Markham Bypass Corridor south of Highway 407 EA (original EA) to the ministry for a decision. The original EA sought approval to construct a four-lane urban arterial roadway, extending from the existing terminus of the Markham Bypass (now referred to as the Donald Cousens Parkway) at Highway 407 southrly to the future Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue intersection in Toronto. The proposed roadway was intended to provide York and Toronto with the capacity to support the increasing transportation needs between the southeast Markham and the northeast of Toronto.

The original EA was made available for public inspection and comment for a seven week period which ended on February 17, 2006.

1.3 Ministry review of the original environmental assessment

The original EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the original EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the original EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. Members of the public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the original 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 undertaking for which approval is being sought.

The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of an EA submitted for approval, 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, 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; 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 a five week comment period on the Review. 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 impacts 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.

The Review of the original EA was made public on January 25, 2008 and concluded that York had provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the undertaking. The Review also explained the ministry’s analysis of the original EA.

The Review concluded that the original EA assessed and evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to arrive at the preferred undertaking; assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and proposed undertaking; and, provided sufficient mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure that the potential negative environmental effects of the undertaking will be minimized. The ministry was satisfied that the analysis of alternatives assessed the potential environmental effects for each of the alternatives to the undertaking; the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking; and, the proposed undertaking for which approval was being sought. The Review also concluded that the original EA provided a description of the mitigation and monitoring measures that would be applied to address and minimize the potential negative environmental effects of the undertaking. The ministry and GRT did not raise any issues of concern in regard to the proposed mitigation measures and proposed monitoring program.

The Review determined that York provided sufficient time and opportunities for the GRT, the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to comment on the preparation of the original EA. The ministry was satisfied that the original EA clearly documented the consultation methods utilized by York to engage these groups during the original EA process. The original EA clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they were addressed by York. York’s consultation methods were found to be in accordance with the requirements of the ToR.

The Review, however, also concluded that there was a jurisdictional issue of concern that remained unresolved. The Review identified that a portion of the proposed roadway for which York was seeking approval, west of 19th Avenue and south of Steeles Avenue, was located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Toronto. The Review explained that York had the authority to only construct the portion of the preferred undertaking located within its jurisdictional boundaries. It would be the decision of Toronto whether to construct the portion of the proposed undertaking within its boundaries. although Toronto had acknowledged the need to address the increasing transportation demands in the area, it opposed to the proposed direct linkage of the roadway recommended in the original EA. On February 14, 2006, Toronto submitted a letter to the ministry stating that it would not extend Morningside Avenue to Steeles Avenue along the recommended alignment.

In response to the conclusions of the Review, York acknowledged that it could not be the sole proponent for the construction of an undertaking outside its municipal boundaries, and that proceeding with the implementation of the preferred undertaking described in the original EA could only proceed with the approval of Toronto.

The Review concluded that because York can only construct the portion of the preferred undertaking located within its jurisdictional boundaries, due to the fact that Toronto declared that it would not extend Morningside Avenue to Steeles Avenue in accordance with recommended alignment of the roadway in the original EA, the Minister would have to decide whether it is prudent to approve an undertaking that may never be constructed.

In accordance with Ontario Regulation 616/98, the Minister was required to make a decision on the original EA by May 30, 2008.

1.4 Minister’s Order

On May 1, 2008 York provided information to the ministry indicating that a tentative resolution to the jurisdictional issue with Toronto had been reached. York had agreed in principle to seek approval for a road alignment supported by Toronto, but which differed from the preferred undertaking described in the original EA. The alignment agreed upon by York and Toronto was a discontinuous arterial road, an alternative ranked third out of nine in the original EA. York requested that the Minister consider approving the original EA conditionally on the submission of an addendum or a separate Class EA process for the portion of the alignment which differs from the alignment of the preferred undertaking identified in the original EA.

On June 10, 2008 the Minister denied the request to approve an alignment that was not identified as the preferred undertaking in the original EA. This was because the original EA did not contain the information required to allow the Minister to make an informed decision about approving an alignment other than the preferred alignment recommended in the original EA. In addition, consultation undertaken to date with the public, Aboriginal communities and the GRT was based on the preferred undertaking in the original EA and not a potentially different alignment. The Minister therefore concluded that the approval of an undertaking other than that described as the preferred undertaking in the original EA was not an appropriate course of action and would therefore not be consistent with the purpose of the EAA. The Minister also concluded that it was in the public interest to allow the outstanding jurisdictional issue to be formally resolved in a subsequent approval process.

Because of the progress that was made in resolving the dispute between York and Toronto, on June 13, 2008 the Minister advised York in writing that the ministry was willing to postpone a decision on the original EA. The postponement would allow York to continue the self-directed mediation with Toronto so that a formal resolution could be finalized. If a potential resolution to the jurisdictional issue was to result in any change to the preferred undertaking, as described in the original EA, York would be expected to prepare an amendment to the original EA that would include, but not be limited to, the following:

  • A work plan setting out timelines for the completion of all work related to the proposed changes
  • A comparative evaluation of each alternative in the EA
  • Any additional supporting information or studies required to assess the potential environmental effects of a different Preferred Undertaking, if the Preferred Undertaking set out in the EA was to change
  • A public, Aboriginal, and government consultation plan, and the results of any consultation
  • A public and Ministry notification protocol related to the proposed changes

York was required to provide a response to the ministry by July 2, 2008, indicating how York wished to proceed. If a response was not received by this date, the Minister would make a decision on the original EA. On June 25, 2008 York responded and accepted the ministry’s approach. Accordingly, on July 15, 2008 the decision on the original EA was postponed.

On January 23, 2009 York notified the ministry that it intended to move forward with an amendment to the original EA. In support of the request for an amendment, York provided the ministry with a work plan, entitled “Regional Municipality of York Transportation Improvements in the Donald Cousens Parkway/Morningside Link Corridor south of Highway 407 Amendment to the EA Work Plan (work plan), January 2009” (Appendix C). The work plan outlined how York intended to re-examine the alternative alignments studied in the original EA. Ministry staff reviewed the work plan and were satisfied that it met the Minister’s requirements, as set forthe in his June 13, 2008 letter to York, and that the work plan complied with the provisions of the EAA and the ToR.

Section 6.2 of the EAA establishes the conditions for submitting, amending and withdrawing an EA. The provision allows a proponent to amend or withdraw the EA after the deadline for completion of the Review of the EA only upon such conditions as the Minister may by order impose. The authority for issuing such an order is found in section 6.2(3) of the EAA.

On July 2, 2009 the Minister issued Order MO-2009-001 to York. The Minster’s Order granted York permission to re-examine the alternative alignments studied in the original EA in consideration of the outstanding jurisdictional issue and the transportation needs of Toronto by way of an amendment, subject to conditions including the following:

  • York shall prepare and make available a Notice of Commencement of the Amendment to the EA upon the initiation of the amendment process
  • York shall amend the EA in accordance with the Regional Municipality of York Transportation Improvements in the Donald Cousens Parkway/Morningside Link Corridor south of Highway 407 Amendment to the EA Work Plan (Appendix B) dated January 2009 and provided to the ministry
  • York shall prepare and make available a Notice of Submission of the Amendment to the EA upon the submission of the amended EA
  • Should York be unable to fulfill the conditions of the Order, York shall abandon the amendment process and officially withdraw its EA
  • York shall complete the amendment process within 12 months from the date upon which the Order is issued, subject to any extension given by the Director of the ministry’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

On March 11, 2009 Ministry staff met with representatives from York and Toronto to discuss the process of moving forward with a proposed amendment to the original EA and the next steps in the EA process. The ministry informed York that the amendment process was to be initiated with the publication and distribution of a formal Notice of Commencement of an Amendment to the original EA. At the conclusion of the amendment process York would be required to prepare and make available a Notice of Submission of the Amendment to the original EA.

The Notice of Commencement of an Amendment to the original EA was issued by the York on December 3, 2009.

1.5 Amended environmental assessment

On November 5, 2010 York submitted a draft amended EA to the ministry for review and comment. The ministry review of the draft identified a number of outstanding concerns. These concerns were submitted to York on January 13, 2011. In order to fully address the concerns raised by the ministry, York submitted a written request to the Director of the ministry’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch seeking an extension to the completion deadline of the Minister’s Order. The additional time would allow York to properly address the ministry comments on the draft amended EA. The completion deadline was therefore extended until August 1, 2011.

On July 19, 2011 York formally submitted the Transportation Improvements, Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended EA (amended EA) for a decision. The amended EA seeks approval to construct a new urban arterial roadway extending from the southrn limit of the Box Grove Development Area in Markham to the future Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue intersection in Toronto. The arterial roadway is intended to provide the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link corridor with the capacity to support the increasing transportation needs between the southeast Markham and the northeast of Toronto.

The amended EA was made available for public review and comment for a seven week period which ended on September 16, 2011. A description of the undertaking can be found in Section 3.3 of this Review.

1.6 Ministry review of the amended environmental assessment

The amended EA was circulated to the GRT for review and comment. The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, carried out a review of the amended EA to ensure that the information and conclusions presented in the amended EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. Interested members of the public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the amended 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.

A Notice of Completion of the Review was published in the Toronto Star, Markham Economist and Sun, and the Scarborough Mirror indicating that this Review has been completed and would be available for a five week comment period from December 2, 2011 to January 13, 2012.

Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the original EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the original EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.

The proposed undertaking

York is seeking approval to construct a new urban arterial roadway extending from the southrn limit of the Box Grove residential area in Markham to the future Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue intersection in Toronto. The arterial roadway is intended to provide the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link corridor with the capacity to support the increasing transportation needs between the southeast Markham and the northeast of Toronto. According to the York Region Transportation Master Plan (June 2002) there is a significant flow of traffic crossing the York-Toronto boundary, which is represented by Steeles Avenue. The increased traffic has resulted in the congestion of many of the arterial roadways in the southrn portion of York, some having become so congested that they are exceeding the capacity for which they were designed.

York has advised that the primary factor for the increased congestion is the lack of an arterial link between the York and Toronto in the amended EA Study Area (Figure 1). There is also no north-south freeway in York, Toronto or Durham Region (Durham) east of Highway 404. Numerous previous studies, including the Morningside Transportation Study (1994), Morningside Corridor Transportation Alternative Study (1995) and Morningside Heights Secondary Plan (1998) prepared by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), have concluded that a major arterial road is required in the Morningside Corridor to service the anticipated development in West Durham and southeast York by 2011.

As part of the original EA process, York determined that the interaction of travel demand between York and Toronto is expected to grow proportionately with population and employment growth in York, Toronto and Durham. both York and Markham carried out investigations of the transportation system. These included the York Region Transportation Master Plan (June 2002) and the Markham Transportation Planning Study (2002). both studies confirmed that improvements to the transportation network are required to accommodate future travel demands.

It should be noted that since the submission of the original EA, the built environment in the EA Study Area has changed. This is primarily a result of the completion of the first phase of residential and infrastructure development in the Box Grove Residential area by Markham. The Ninthe Line Bypass (now known as the Box Grove Bypass) was constructed in conjunction with the first phase of the Box Grove development, which is located in a section of the recommended alignment for the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link. In conjunction with the final build-out of the Box Grove residential area, Markham is constructing the remaining section of a Town Arterial Road to address local traffic needs from the Box Grove Bypass to the existing terminus of the Donald Cousens Parkway at Highway 407. This road is currently under construction. It should be noted that the Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road do not form part of the undertaking for which approval is being sought; however, these sections of roadways will be part of the alignment referred to as the Donald Cousens Parkway in Markham.

To account for the changes to the built environment since the submission of the original EA, York carried out additional traffic analysis based on updated population and employment projections found in the most current Official Plans and Transportation Master Plans (2010), as well as taking into consideration road and transit improvements that have been planned in the surrounding municipalities. Through this additional analysis York has concluded that the need and justification, as set forthe in the original EA, remains unchanged and that additional transportation capacity is still needed between York and Toronto.

If EAA approval is granted, the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the amended EA and any conditions of approval. In addition, York must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Figure 1: Transportation improvements, Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link amended EA study area

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

Results of the Ministry Review

The Review provides the ministry’s analysis of the amended EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the amended EA nor present the information found in the amended EA. For information on the decision making process please refer to the amended EA itself. The amended EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA amendment process and demonstrates how York has used the amended EA process to determine the preferred undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought.

As noted earlier, the Review does not make a decision about the proposed undertaking. That is the decision of the Minister, which is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In addition, any conditions of EAA approval referred to in this document are only suggested to be imposed as a means of addressing outstanding issues in the event that the Minister decides to approve the undertaking.

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the amended EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the approved ToR, the EAA and the “Regional Municipality of York Transportation Improvements in the Donald Cousens Parkway/Morningside Link Corridor south of Highway 407 Amendment to the EA Work Plan” have been met.

Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the requirements of the ToR 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 and EA amendments. This consultation is the responsibility of the proponent and must be done prior to the submission of the EA or an amendment to the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR and any conditions the Minister imposes in an order allowing an EA to be amended. The ministry is satisfied with the level of consultation that occurred during the preparation of the original EA and the amended EA. The ministry is also satisfied that the level of consultation was appropriate for the EA amendment process and the proposed undertaking. The amended EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by York to engage the GRT, the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities in the EA process.

Once an EA or amended EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during a five week comment period. The GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA or amended EA, as the case may be, and to submit comments to the ministry on the EA or amended EA or on the undertaking for which approval is being sought. All comments received by the ministry during this comment period are forwarded to the proponent for a response as to how it proposes to address any issues or concerns that have been raised. Summaries of the all comments received during the comment period on the amended EA, along with York’s responses, are included in Tables 1-3. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B.

Government Review Team

Consultation with the GRT was carried out from the initiation of the ToR in 2004 through to the submission of the original EA, and during the preparation of the amendment to the EA. The consultation program was initiated during the preparation of the ToR and it was continued up until the submission of the amended EA. York developed the consultation program to ensure that opportunities were provided to seek input and identify issues at each specific milestone of the original EA process and during the EA amendment process. The consultation process was documented in a Public Consultation Record, which provided a summary of the issues and concerns raised during the consultation process on the original and amended EA.

At the beginning of the original EA process a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established by York. The TAC was comprised of local municipalities and government agencies that expressed an interest in participating in the preparation of the original EA. The municipal members of the TAC included York, Markham, Toronto and Durham. The external agencies included the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), Canadian Pacific Rail (CP), and the Rouge Park Alliance (RPA).

The TAC was actively involved in identifying issues of concern, developing and assessing alternatives, and developing mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts. The TAC held meetings prior to each project milestone to address any issues or concerns as the original EA process progressed. In addition, a process of ongoing dialogue was maintained throughout the entire original EA study process.

During the preparation of the amendment to the EA, consultation with the GRT was carried out as a continuation of the consultation process that was undertaken during the original EA. Two meetings were held with the TAC during the EA Amendment process.

  • September 17, 2009—TAC Meeting #1 to review rationale for EA Amendment, overview of Work Plan of the EA Amendment, consultation strategy, and update of existing conditions
  • January 26, 2010—TAC Meeting #2 to review the update of the alternatives, alternative evaluation and preliminary recommendations

In addition to meetings with the TAC, presentations were also made to York and Municipal Committees of Council during the EA Amendment process. Presentations during the EA Amendment process included:

  • March 25, 2010—Presentation to York Region Planning and Economic Development Committee
  • April 13, 2010—Presentation to Town of Markham Development Services Committee

The GRT was consulted during the EA amendment process. They were notified at key points of the amendment process, including the Notice of Commencement, notification of TAC meetings and Notice of Completion.

During the EA amendment process, issues identified by the TAC and the GRT were noted and incorporated where appropriate in the EA amendment. A draft of the amended EA was provided to members of the TAC and the GRT for review in November 2010. In addition, meetings were held with the RPA, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and the TRCA during the EA amendment process to discuss issues related to the potential Rouge River, Morningside Tributary and Neilson Tributary crossings.

Public consultation

The public, which includes the general public, communities, interest groups and property owners, were provided with several opportunities to participate and provide input in the preparation of the EA and the amended EA. Public participation in the EA and the EA amendment process was achieved in a variety of ways.

Mailing lists were prepared during the ToR stage of the EA process and were carried forward during the preparation of the original EA. Interested members of the public were added to the list throughout the EA process. The mailing lists provided an on-going means for York to update the public on the EA process and to request comments.

Two formal Public Consultation Centres were held by York. The first Public Consultation Centre was held on October 13 and 14, 2004 and involved a review of the need and justification for the transportation improvements, the transportation improvement alternative solutions that were examined, the development and assessment of these alternatives, and the next steps of the study. The second Public Consultation Centre was held on April 20 and 21, 2005 and involved the review of the analysis and evaluation of transportation alternatives, and the identification of the technically preferred alternative. A public Consultation Summary Report was prepared following each consultation centre and was included as part of the original EA documentation.

During the EA amendment process, the general public, communities, interest groups and property owners were consulted. They were notified at key points during the amendment process, including the Notice of Commencement, notification of Public Consultation Centres and the Notice of Completion.

York held two formal Public Consultation Centres during the EA amendment process. The purpose of the Public Consultation Centres was to present work carried out as part of the EA amendment process and to present the technically preferred alternative. The first Public Consultation Centre was held in Toronto on May 11, 2010 and the second was held in Markham on May 13, 2010. York placed notices of the Public Consultation Centres in local and national newspapers, including the Toronto Star, Markham Economist and Sun, and the Scarborough Mirror. York also mailed notices about the Public Consultation Centres to property owners bounded by Highway 407 to the north and Finch Avenue to the south, Markham Road to the west and York Durham Line to the east. A copy of the notice was also mailed to each individual who had previously provided comments during the EA process. A Summary Report of the Public Consultation Centres was prepared following and included as part of the amended EA documentation.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to consultation with the broader public, Aboriginal communities were consulted. Aboriginal communities may have special Aboriginal rights and land claims that need to be considered.

During the preparation of the original EA, York contacted both the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) and Aboriginal Affairs and northrn Development Canada (formerly Indian and northrn Affairs Canada). York was informed that neither agency was aware of a land claim or any ongoing Aboriginal litigation within the EA Study Area.

In addition, York contacted the following Aboriginal groups and communities with a potential interest in the undertaking due to its location and requested their input:

  • Mississaugas of the New Credit
  • Anishinabek Nation/Union of Ontario Indians
  • Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians
  • Native Canadian Centre for Toronto
  • Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation
  • Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
  • Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
  • Wahta Mohawks First Nation
  • Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte
  • Oneida First Nation
  • Hiawatha First Nation
  • Curve Lake First Nation
  • Beausoleil First Nation
  • Alderville First Nation
  • Huron Wendat of Wendake Quebec
  • Algonquins of Pikwakanagan
  • Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) First Nation
  • Moose Deer Point First Nation

Each of the above groups and communities was provided a copy of the original EA documentation by this ministry. The ministry Review of the original EA found that no opposition or concerns were raised by the consulted Aboriginal communities during the preparation or submission of the original EA.

During the EA amendment process, consultation with Aboriginal communities was continued by York. In addition to the Aboriginal communities that were consulted during the preparation of the original EA, the following Aboriginal groups and communities were also contacted by York during the preparation of the EA amendment:

  • Union of Ontario Indians—Nippising First Nation
  • Iroquois Confederacy
  • Munsee-Delaware Nation
  • Metis Nation of Ontario
  • Chippewas of Nawash
  • Chiefs of Ontario
  • Coordinator for Williams Treaty First Nations

Aboriginal groups and communities were consulted at key milestones during the amendment process, including the Notice of Commencement, Notification of Public Consultation Centres and the Notice of Completion. A draft of the amended EA was also provided to Aboriginal groups and communities for review in November 2010. Issues identified by Aboriginal communities were noted and incorporated where appropriate in the amended EA.

Alderville First Nation indicated that the Project has minimal potential to impact its rights, and wishes to be kept apprised throughout the project, including about archaeological findings and environmental impacts. The Chippewas of Rama First Nation indicated that it had forwarded the matter to the Coordinator for the Williams Treaties First Nations. To date, no other Aboriginal communities have submitted comments to York or the ministry about the amended EA.

Ministry conclusions on the consultation program

Overall, the ministry believes that York has provided sufficient opportunities for the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities to participate and provide input during the preparation of the original EA and the EA amendment. The amended EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by York to engage these groups during the original EA and EA amendment process. The amended EA clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they have been addressed by York.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the ToR and the EA amendment work plan. The amended EA also demonstrates how the required components of the EAA for consultation have been met.

3.2 EA process

An EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify an existing problem or opportunity; consider alternative ways of addressing a problem or opportunity; evaluate the environmental effects of these alternatives; and, select a preferred alternative that will become the undertaking for which approval under the EAA will be sought.

In August 2002, York commenced an EA process to address the transportation needs in the Markham Bypass Corridor (now referred to as the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Corridor). The analysis of transportation improvements is a Schedule C project under the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class EA; however, due to the expected public and agency interest in this matter, and the concern regarding the potential impacts to the Rouge River, its tributaries and the Rouge Park, York voluntarily decided to prepare an individual EA. The purpose of the EA was to address the existing and future transportation deficiencies across the boundary of the south-eastern areas of Markham and the developed areas and the proposed to be developed areas of the north eastern portion of Toronto.

On December 23, 2005, York submitted the original EA to the ministry for a decision. The original EA sought approval to construct a continuous four lane urban arterial roadway, extending from Highway 407 southrly to the future Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue intersection in Toronto. Due to the fact that York only has the authority to construct the portion of the preferred undertaking located within its jurisdictional boundaries, it was the decision of Toronto as to whether or not the relevant portion of the undertaking would be constructed within its boundaries. although Toronto acknowledged the need to address the increasing transportation demands in the area it opposed to the preferred alignment of the roadway recommended in the original EA.

On July 2, 2009 the Minister issued an Order to York which granted permission to re-examine the alternative alignments studied in the original EA in consideration of the outstanding jurisdictional issue and the transportation needs of Toronto by way of an amendment to the original EA.

At the start of the EA amendment study, York re-examined and evaluated the range of alternatives presented in the original EA. The alternative solutions evaluated included:

  • Do nothing
  • Widen existing roads (Base Case)
  • Widen existing roads beyond base case
  • Base case plus dedicated transit facility
  • Base case plus transit initiatives
  • Base case plus a transportation management plan
  • Base case plus transit initiatives and a transportation management plan
  • Base case plus a new road alignment (Markham Bypass Corridor south of Highway 407)
  • Base case plus transit initiatives, a transportation management plan, and a new road alignment

York followed a logical and transparent decision-making process that was clearly outlined in the amended EA. York confirmed that the study area for the amended EA remained the same as the original EA, and confirmed that the existing transportation conditions and alternative solutions from the original EA had also not changed.

The amended EA provides an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternative solutions that would address the current and future transportation needs in south-eastern Markham and the north-eastern portion of Toronto. The documentation of this evaluation methodology clearly outlines how the evaluation criteria were developed and applied to each alternative. Each of the alternative solutions was developed with the intent of building upon each other to form a wide range of transportation network options. The proposed improvements to the transportation network were designed to be consistent with the recommendations of the York’s Transportation Master Plan. Each of the alternative solutions was then carried forward in the amended EA process for further analysis and evaluation to determine the preferred undertaking.

The analysis and evaluation of alternative solutions found that planned road improvements; transit improvements; a detailed transportation demand management strategy; and, a new major arterial road provided significant improvements to the existing transportation network and addressed the capacity needed to accommodate the planned growth and travel demands of the amended EA study area. In particular, the construction of an arterial road would provide the foundation upon which York could develop options for the design and implementation of both transit and road network improvements.

Upon selecting a new road alignment as the preferred solution, an evaluation of alternative methods for carrying out the undertaking was conducted, using the same evaluation criteria presented in the original EA. York identified nine alternative methods, including determining the general location of the new road and specific alignments. The alternatives were developed based on design criteria that would allow York to develop alternatives that were considered reasonable, feasible and reflected the types of constraints that existed within the study area.

Each alternative method was evaluated using a set of criteria that were developed by York to be relevant, clear and logical. The alternatives were evaluated based on the advantages and disadvantages of potential environmental effects and were presented in a traceable manner. The evaluation was built upon baseline data and the existing conditions in the study area. York’s evaluation was completed using criteria that fell into the following categories:

  • Socio-economic environmental effects
  • Natural environmental effects
  • Transportation benefits
  • Cost

York also considered public opinion and general service provisions as they related to each alternative. The screening criteria were weighted based on the relative importance to each aspect of the environment, and were then given a quantitative or qualitative result. These results were tabulated and presented in section 6 of the amended EA in the form of a matrix.

York completed various updates to the studies and investigations carried out as part of the original EA in order to reconfirm and support the evaluation of the alternatives and the selection of the preferred undertaking. Feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, natural heritage features assessments, air quality and noise impact assessments, archaeological assessments were all completed and presented in the amended EA for the potential development and implementation of a new arterial roadway. York also considered public input obtained during public information centres and general service provisions as they related to each alternative.

The analysis of alternatives assessed the potential environmental effects for the alternatives to the undertaking, the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking,  and provides a description of the mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects. The ministry and GRT have not raised any issues of concern in regard to the proposed mitigation measures and proposed monitoring program.

3.2.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the amended EA were gathered during pre-submission consultation and the amended EA review comment period. During this time the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities were provide with opportunities to submit comments on the amended EA and the undertaking. A summary of the comments received, including York’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction, can be found in the Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the Appendices of this Review.

Air quality

As part of the EA amendment process, York conducted air quality assessments to determine the potential for emission impacts from the undertaking on air quality. For this purpose, York used the Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for pollution concentrations to evaluate impacts in an air quality report. Ministry technical staff have reviewed the Air Quality Impact Assessment for Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link report and requested that York provide additional clarification about the approach taken to develop the data used in the air quality assessments. In particular, York was requested to explain why the average 90th percentile background concentration for ambient air was used for all parameters instead of the maximum 90th percentile of the 5 year monitoring data.

In a response to the ministry’s comments, York has clarified that the use of the average 90th percentile in monitoring data from the five most recent years of data from representative ministry monitoring stations is consistent with the approach that York and its consultants have applied for previous transportation studies that were submitted to and accepted by the ministry. York has identified that for the purposes of assessing air quality as part of the EA amendment, the use of the maximum 90th percentile for background contaminant concentrations would not change the conclusions of the Air Quality Impact Assessment nor would there be any predicted exceedances of applicable criteria at any identified sensitive receptor location.

The ministry is satisfied with the response and clarification provided by York. The ministry is also satisfied that the use of the maximum 90th percentile for background contaminant concentrations has no implications for the outcome of the air quality assessments in the amended EA.

Alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking

During the EA amendment process, updates to the existing transportation network and the existing conditions of the EA Study Area were taken into consideration and reviewed to determine if the effectiveness and feasibility of each of the alternative alignments from the original EA remained unchanged. Based on the updates, York made refinements as necessary to the alignments being considered as ‘alternative methods’.

The amended EA identifies that there have been some improvements in the transportation network since the submission of the original EA. In particular, a number of roadways have been or are being constructed as part of the Box Grove residential area build out. Ministry staff have noted that the addition of these new roadways to the transportation network do appear to have been taken into consideration by York in determining if the alignments being considered as ‘alternative methods’ require modifications.

The ministry requested additional clarification from York to explain why each of the alternative alignments being considered start at the 407 and Donald Cousens Parkway interchange and not at the terminus of the town arterial road constructed or being constructed as part the Box Grove development.

York responded by explaining that the Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road were planned and constructed by Markham to address a separate and local transportation need. During the EA amendment process, York determined that the location of these roads could be utilized in the design of alternative alignments as the location of these roadways were consistent with the preferred location of a new arterial roadway. although they do not form part of the undertaking for which approval is being sought, the location of the Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road were considered during the design and evaluation of the alternative alignments being assessed as part of the EA amendment process.

The ministry is satisfied that the manner in which each alternative alignment was refined by York is consistent with the updates to the existing transportation network since the submission of the original EA. There is nothing preventing York from utilizing the updates to the transportation network in the design and evaluation of alternative alignments to address the broader transportation needs in the amended EA study area.

Traffic modelling

As part of the EA amendment process, York carried out additional traffic modelling to assess the design and feasibility of each of the alternative alignments being considered. The manner in which the additional traffic modelling was to be undertaken was set forthe in York’s EA amendment work plan. In the work plan, York committed to carrying out a detailed micro-simulation analysis to assess the traffic operational characteristics of each of the alignment alternatives from the original EA. This commitment was further supported by a condition of the Minister’s Order issued to York, requiring that York amend the EA in accordance with the EA amendment work plan.

A review of the additional traffic monitoring carried out as part of the EA amendment process noted that York did not carry out a detailed micro-simulation analysis of each of the alignment alternatives from the original EA. During the amendment process, York determined that the ability of traffic modelling involving a micro-simulation to identify the traffic operational characteristics of each of the alternative alignments was limited. As a result, York grouped each of the alternative alignments into one of two functional scenarios for the purpose of traffic modelling. The alternative alignments were categorized as either “continuous” or “discontinuous”. The functional scenarios were then used as the basis for traffic modelling. This change in scope is not supported by the commitment set forthe in York’s work plan.

The ministry has requested clarification from York to explain why, from a transportation modelling perspective, the ability of traffic modelling involving a micro-simulation to identify the traffic operational characteristics of each of the alternative alignments was determined to be limited. York was also requested to provide a more detailed explanation as to how the limitations of a micro-simulation analysis would affect the accuracy of the traffic modelling findings and the ability of York to reasonably compare the operational characteristics of each of the alternative alignments identified in the amended EA with one another.

York explained that a micro-simulation analysis can only really distinguish operational traffic differences between various alignments when there are substantive differences in their functional characteristics, such as turning radiuses, the number of lanes and posted speed limits in kilometres (km). In the case of the discontinuous alternative alignments, the difference between a four lane and a six lane cross section along Steeles Avenue represents a substantive difference. The same can not be said for the continuous alignments, as they each share similar functional characteristics. York therefore conducted a separate micro-simulation scenario for each of the discontinuous alignments. In the case of the continuous alternative alignments, the traffic differences were not considered sufficient enough to result in any noticeable differences. Therefore, the continuous alternative alignments were grouped into a single functional scenario for the purpose of traffic micro-simulation modelling. The findings of the additional traffic modelling were sufficient for use in identify the traffic operational characteristics of the alignments being considered and were used to assess the design and feasibility of each of the alternative alignments being considered.

The ministry is satisfied that by combining the continuous alignment alternatives into a single micro-simulation scenario York did not affect its ability to reasonably compare the traffic performance of each of the alternative alignments and did not affect the overall conclusions of the evaluation of alternatives.

Impacts to the local community

Members of the public have expressed their opposition to the proposed alignment because of concerns relating to noise impacts, air quality, light pollution, impacts to the Rouge River water quality and natural areas, loss of greenspace, additional traffic on Morningside Avenue and Neilson Road, and the overall safety of pedestrians.

York has expressed its commitment to ensure that any concerns related to the potential impacts of the undertaking will managed through mitigation provision in the amended EA and the commitments that may be made conditions of EA approval. The ministry is satisfied that the environmental impacts can be managed through the commitments made in response to the comments received during the comment period.

The ministry is further satisfied that the provisions of the amended EA, and any additional commitments that may be made conditions of EA approval, will ensure that the undertaking will be designed and carried out to comply with ministry standards.

Provisions for amending the EA

Upon review of the amended EA by ministry staff, it was determined that the provisions for addressing changes to the undertaking after approval do not appear to take into account the provisions of section 12 of the EAA for post-approval changes to the undertaking.

The amended EA identifies a series of provisions to address changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. Of particular concern are the provisions which address major changes to the undertaking. Section 12 of the EAA states that if a proponent wishes to change an undertaking following its approval, the proposed change is an undertaking for the purposes of the EAA. This means that an individual EA would be required for the change, unless a Class EA or other process were available. The amended EA provisions can not change or supersede the requirements of the EAA. The ministry is therefore unable to support York’s proposed provisions to address post approval changes to the amended EA. Accordingly if the Minister decides to give approval to proceed with the undertaking, he will be advised to impose conditions of approval that rectify this conflict with the EAA.

3.2.2 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with York’s decision making process. The amended EA contains a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity. The amended EA presents an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternative methods of addressing transportation improvements in the amended EA study area. The evaluation of alternative methods used criteria that considered the broad definition of the environment (this includes natural, public health and safety, social, economic, cultural, and transportation). The amended EA provided a description of the affected environment in the amended EA study area and identified the elements of the environment that may be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the alternatives of the proposed undertaking. The amended EA also describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking, based on those potential environmental impacts. The ministry is therefore satisfied that the amended EA demonstrates, in a logical and transparent process, why the preferred alternative was selected.

3.3 Proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is clearly described in the amended EA documentation, and was evaluated based on the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of the environment was used in order to evaluate all potential impacts. This definition included the natural environment, the socio-economic environment, and the cultural environment, as well as public health and safety.

The proposed undertaking is the construction of a four lane urban arterial roadway extension of Morningside Avenue from McNicoll Avenue north to Steeles Avenue in Toronto; a widening of Steeles Avenue to a six lane urban roadway from east of Tapscott Road to east of Ninthe Line; a widening of Ninthe Line to a four lane urban roadway from Steeles Avenue to the south limit of the Box Grove Development Area in Markham; and, new ramps at the Donald Cousens Parkway and Highway 407 Interchange to provide access onto Highway 407 from the south. The undertaking also includes a new crossing of the Neilson Tributary and replacement of the existing Steeles Avenue crossings of the Rouge River and Morningside Tributary.

The proposed undertaking will cross the Rouge River at Steeles Avenue, the Morningside Tributary at Steeles Avenue, and the Neilson Tributary just north of the McNicoll Avenue extension. The Neilson Tributary crossing will be a new structure north of the existing terminus of the Morningside Avenue McNicoll Avenue intersection.

Construction of the proposed undertaking will be carried out in three main segments:

  • The widening of Ninthe Line to a four lane urban roadway from Steeles Avenue to the southrn limit of the Box Grove Development Area in Markham (1.2 km)
  • The widening of Steeles Avenue to a six lane urban roadway from east of Tapscott Road to east of Ninthe Line in Toronto (2 km)
  • The extension of Morningside Avenue from McNicoll Avenue north to Steeles Avenue in Toronto (1.5 km).

The segment of roadway in Markham is to be constructed by York as part of its 2014 capital work plan, subject to annual York Regional Council review. Given the multi- jurisdictional nature of the overall undertaking the final construction staging strategy for the segments of the roadway in Toronto are not known at this time.

The construction of the Highway 407 southeast and southwest ramps are also part of the undertaking for which EAA approval is being sought. The timing of implementation will be subject to a decision by the 407 Electronic Toll Route (ETR).

Should approval be granted to proceed with the proposed undertaking, York has committed to initiating a multi-party discussion related to cost sharing and implementation of improvements along Steeles Avenue. A cost sharing and implementation agreement is expected to include York and Toronto, with potential involvement from the MTO, Durham and the City of Pickering; given their interest in the newly proposed Seaton Area development and need for boundary area transportation capacity as identified in the Durham/Toronto/York Area Transportation Study and Seaton Servicing Class EA.

3.3.1 Key issues

Key issues regarding the amended EA process completed by York were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the amended EA review comment period. While the procedural and legislative requirements of the ToR and EAA have been met, issues were raised during the public and government review of the amended EA that needed to be addressed before a decision about the undertaking can be made. A copy of each comment received is contained in Appendix B. All comments, including York’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1–3.

The City of Toronto municipal jurisdiction

The review of the amended EA by the ministry has concluded that the jurisdictional issue which prompted the EA amendment process has not been fully resolved to the satisfaction of the ministry. The amended EA does not provide enough certainty to confirm whether or not the recommended preferred undertaking will be implemented as described in the amended EA. Given that the original EA was amended to address the issue of jurisdictional authority regarding the implementation of the undertaking, it is the ministry’s expectation that York provide enough information to the ministry so that, should the Minister decide to approve the undertaking, there would be a level of certainty that the undertaking would be carried out as contemplated in the amended EA.

A key component of the description of the preferred undertaking is an explanation as to how the undertaking for which approval is being sought will be implemented. This often involves an overview of the roles and responsibilities associated with the cost, construction, operation and monitoring of the preferred undertaking. The amended EA clearly documents that the construction and financing of the portions of the recommended preferred alignment within Toronto are either not known or have not been identified at the time of submission.

When an EA is submitted to the ministry that seeks approval for an undertaking where the schedule for implementation or the roles and responsibilities for the cost,  construction, operation and monitoring of the undertaking are not known, this is sometimes resolved by the Minister imposing conditions of approval requiring a proponent to submit documentation on these items prior to the commencement of construction. In this case, however, such a condition of approval may not be appropriate as it may in effect place the final decision on whether or not the undertaking may be built with Toronto, as it will ultimately be Toronto that decides whether or not it agrees to the proposed cost sharing and implementation agreement.

On April 13, 2011, during the preparation of the amended EA, the City of Toronto submitted a letter (Appendix B) to the ministry indicating support for the undertaking. The letter also clearly identified that support for the undertaking is conditional on the establishment of a cost sharing and implementation agreement, which would define the roles and responsibilities of both parties in the cost, construction, operation and monitoring of the undertaking if it is approved. Should an agreement not be reached it may be reasonably concluded that the undertaking, as described in the amended EA, may never be built. Furthermore, there is nothing preventing Toronto from carrying out improvements to its transportation network along the proposed alignment and in a manner that does not complement or support the undertaking for which York is seeking approval. A decision to approve the undertaking would not protect the transportation corridor along and south of Steeles Avenue from any proposed development or improvement by Toronto.

The amended EA identifies that York is seeking approval for an undertaking of which the majority is to be located outside of their jurisdictional authority. The amended EA also states that York is seeking approval for the undertaking as a sole proponent. The fundamental issue with the amended EA is that the Minister can only impose conditions of approval on a proponent who is named as such in the EA application. Toronto is not a co-proponent for the undertaking and therefore the Minister may not impose conditions of approval upon Toronto that would ensure that the proposed undertaking would be implemented as described in the amended EA.

York has responded to the ministry’s concerns about jurisdictional authority by assuring the ministry that Toronto is supportive of the preferred alignment for which approval is being sought. In addition, York has indicated that significant progress has been made towards finalizing a cost sharing and implementation agreement with York. Should approval be granted for the undertaking, York has committed in writing to initiating post approval multi-party discussions to develop a final cost sharing and implementation agreement. The manner and timing for this commitment has not yet been determined.

The ministry is supportive of York’s commitment to work with Toronto to determine how and when the portions of the preferred undertaking can be built; however, the ministry is concerned that should an agreement not be reached with Toronto on the cost and implementation of the undertaking, the undertaking may never be built or it may not be implemented as contemplated in the amended EA. The issue of jurisdictional authority will be considered by the Minister in making a decision about the preferred undertaking.

Crossing of the Rouge River

The MNR, the RPA, and the TRCA have each submitted comments as part of the GRT during the EA amendment process and during the comment period on the amended EA (Appendix B). The comments submitted expressed concern in regarding the proposed crossing of the Rouge River, the Morningside Tributary and Neilson Tributary.

The agencies each expressed concern that the detailed design of the road and crossing structures are not a requirement of the EA amendment process, and that these designs are therefore not part of the amended EA review. In particular, the TRCA recommended that any river crossing be designed to encourage wildlife passage and public use, and that the Rouge Park is not partitioned by the proposed transportation infrastructure.

Comments submitted by MNR also identified concerns in regards to the proposed location of bridge crossings. It is the opinion of MNR technical staff that any crossings over a water course should be designed perpendicular to the stream alignment. This is to ensure that that an adequate separation of distance to a water course is maintained. Failure to do so may result in significant impacts should the water course migrate.

York has agreed to consult with the MNR, TRCA, and the RPA during the detailed design phase of the crossing structures. York has expressed its commitment to ensure that any detailed design will be developed to encourage wildlife passage and public use, and that the Rouge Park is not partitioned by the proposed transportation infrastructure.

3.3.2 Conclusion

York has provided adequate responses and updates to the amended EA in order to address the technical concerns raised by the GRT during the agency and public comment period. In addition, York has committed to including those agencies that expressed an interest to participate and comment on the final design features of the undertaking. The ministry is satisfied, based on comments provided by review agencies and York that this will ensure that any potential impacts resulting from the undertaking are appropriately managed. The ministry is also satisfied that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can  be managed through the commitments made in the amended EA or through additional work that may be carried out by York.

The ministry, however, is concerned that the issue of jurisdictional authority has not been fully resolved. Should an agreement not be reached with Toronto on the cost and implementation of the undertaking, the undertaking may never be built or it may not be implemented as contemplated in the amended EA.

Summary of the ministry review

The ministry is satisfied that York has prepared the amended EA in accordance with the requirements of the EAA, and has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking. This Review explains the ministry’s analysis of the amended EA.

The Review has concluded that the amended EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking; assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and proposed undertaking; and, provided sufficient mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure that the potential negative environmental effects of the undertaking will be minimized. The ministry is satisfied that the analysis of alternatives assessed the potential environmental effects for the alternatives to the undertaking, the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of the mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects will be minimized.

The Review has concluded that York has provided sufficient time and opportunities for the GRT, the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to comment on the preparation of the amended EA. The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by York to engage these groups during the amended EA process. The amended EA clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they were addressed by York. York’s consultation methods were found to be in accordance with the requirements of the ToR and its amended EA work plan.

The Review has also concluded that there are several outstanding issues that must be considered when making a decision to proceed with the undertaking. It is the ministry’s opinion that the noted technical issues with the amended EA can be addressed through proposed Conditions of Approval.

The outstanding issue with the amended EA application is not a technical matter but a matter of jurisdiction and York’s ability to implement the undertaking. This does not prevent the Minister from exercising his authority to make a decision about the application. There appears to be some uncertainty regarding the ability to implement the portion of the undertaking within Toronto’s jurisdictional authority. However, the ministry is encouraged by Toronto’s April 13, 2011 letter indicating that it is supportive of the amended EA and that it has committed to participating in multiparty discussions related to cost sharing and implementation of the planned improvements along Steeles Avenue.

An EA determines if, on the basis of the environmental effects of an undertaking, the undertaking should be allowed to proceed. The ministry is of the opinion that this undertaking, if implemented in its entirety, would be consistent with the purpose of the EAA. It will address significant transportation issues and York has demonstrated that the balance of positive and negative environmental effects of building and putting into operation this roadway are better than the effects of doing nothing. Particularly, easing traffic congestion will have the effect of reducing air pollution, contaminant run-off and noise and other property impacts on existing roads.

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 amended EA and/or the Review. During the comment period anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed.

At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the amended 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 amended EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the amended 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.

The Minister’s decision to approve, approve with conditions or refusal to give approval to proceed with the undertaking is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, York will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 9.3 of the amended EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

  • Municipal building permits for the maintenance facility
  • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority permits
  • Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada authorization
  • Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Protection Act approvals, including for the proposed storm sewers and stormwater
  • Permits under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act approval
  • Any Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources approvals

The above list is not all inclusive and other approvals may be required as the project proceeds. These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

The EA identifies a series of provisions for how to accommodate and address changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. As noted previously, given the issues surrounding these provisions the ministry will recommend that the Minister, if the undertaking is approved, impose conditions to modify these provisions such that any major changes are themselves deemed to be undertakings for which EA approval will be required.

If the Region determines that a new concern that was not identified in the EA is significant, the Region will conduct the Detail Design for the affected component of the project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, 2007. This will include the preparation of a Transportation Environmental Study Report and will provide an opportunity to re-examine the route location or the balance of the design. The Region will conduct formal public and agency consultation as part of this process.

Public record locations

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

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

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

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

Regional Municipality of York
Office of the Regional Clerk
17250 Yonge Street, 4th floor
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 6Z1

Woodside Square Library
Woodside Square Mall
1571 Sandhurst Circle
Toronto, Ontario
M1V 1V2

Markham Village Library
6031 Highway 7
Markham, Ontario
L3P 3A

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

Town of Markham
Office of the Town Clerk
101 Town Centre Boulevard
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9W3

City of Toronto Scarborough Civic Centre
Clerk’s Department
150 Borough Drive
Toronto, Ontario
M1P 4N7

Making a submission

A five-week public review period ending January 13, 2012 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the amended environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:

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

  • Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Link Amended Environmental Assessment
Attention: Gavin Battarino, 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 requirements

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

Appendix B: Submissions received during the initial comment period

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

Appendix C: Supplemental information

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