Ministry review of the Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment

Executive summary

Who

The Regional Municipality of York

What

Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment for the proposed undertaking, the Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS), which includes three integrated components:

• A water reclamation centre treating 40 megalitres per day of wastewater to produce a) clean treated water for discharge to the East Holland River and b) reclaimed water for various applications;
• A project-specific phosphorous off-setting program. Seven existing stormwater management ponds in the Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury and Newmarket would be retrofitted to maximize phosphorus capture, a new pond would be constructed in the Town of Georgina, and low impact development technologies would be installed in the Town of Newmarket; and
• Modifications to the existing York Durham Sewage System: wastewater would be conveyed by a new forcemain adjacent to the existing York Durham Sewage System, a second new forcemain would convey wastewater from the existing Newmarket and Bogart Creek Pumping Stations to the first new forcemain, and connections from the Newmarket and Bogart Creek Pumping Stations to the new forcemains for treatment and discharge to Lake Ontario would be constructed.

When

EA submitted: July 25, 2014.

Where

The study area for the UYSS project extends to areas in the Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Newmarket and Whitchurch- Stouffville (see figure 1). From the north to south the study area extends between Cook’s Bay and St. John’s Sideroad, and from west to east the study area extends between Bathurst Street and Woodbine Avenue. South of Green Lane the west to east study area narrows to just west of Yonge Street and just east of Leslie Street.

Why

The purpose of the undertaking is to develop a sustainable sewage servicing solution to accommodate the provincially-approved growth forecasts for an area in York Region including portions of the Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury, and Newmarket.

Conclusions

The Ministry Review concludes that the Environmental Assessment was prepared in accordance with the approved amended Terms of Reference and contains sufficient information to assess the potential environmental effects of the proponent’s undertaking. The Environmental Assessment demonstrated that York Region will be able to meet the objectives set out in the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and the Phosphorous Reduction Strategy. Most of the issues raised by Aboriginal communities and the Government Review Team during the EA process were addressed in the EA. Conditions are being considered to address the remaining concerns regarding Aboriginal community consultation, and reinforce York Region’s commitments regarding phosphorus offset facility monitoring and pilot testing of the reverse osmosis concentrate.

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
135 St.Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
Voice: 416-314-8001 / 1-800-461-6290
Fax: 416-314-8452

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

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Central Region
5775 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario M2M 4J1
Phone: 416-326-6700
Fax: 416-326-6345

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
York Durham District Office
230 Westney Rd South, 5^th Floor
Ajax, Ontario L1S 7J5
Phone: 905-427-5600 / 1-800-376-4547
Fax: 905-427-5602

Administrative Centre Clerk’s Office
The Regional Municipality of York
17250 Yonge Street
Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1
Phone: 905-830-4444 ext. 71320
Email: regionalclerk@york.ca

Copies are also available for viewing at offices of:

Town of Newmarket Clerk’s Office
395 Mulock Drive
P.O. Box 328 Station Main
Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X7
Phone: 905-895-5193

Town of Aurora Clerk’s Office
100 John West Way, Box 1000
Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1
Phone: 905-727-1375 / TTY: 905-726-4766
Fax: 905-726-4731
Email: info@aurora.ca

Town of East Gwillimbury Clerk’s Office
19000 Leslie Street
Sharon, Ontario L0G 1V0
Phone: 905-478-4282
Fax: 905-478-2808
Fax: 905-478-8545
Email: customerservice@eastgwillimbury.ca

Town of Georgina Clerk’s Office
26557 Civic Centre Rd, RR 2
Keswick, Ontario L4P 3G1
Phone: 905-476-4301 / 705-437-2210
Fax: 905-476-8100
Email: info@georgina.ca

UYSS Project Office
1195 Stellar Drive, Unit 1
Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 7B8
Phone: 905-830-5656
Fax: 905-830-0176
Website: www.uyssolutions.ca

Making a submission

A six-week public review period ending February 26, 2016 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:

Director
Environmental Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
Fax: 416-314-8452

Re: Upper York Sewage Solutions EA

Attention: Dorothy Moszynski, Project Officer (A)

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.

Environmental assessment process

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

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

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. 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 proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

York Region prepared a ToR that was approved by the Minister on March 11, 2010. Prior to approving the UYSS ToR, the Minister amended the ToR to require York Region to consider innovative wastewater treatment technologies when assessing alternatives to the undertaking and alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking.

The ToR set out how York Region would assess alternatives, assess environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the process York Region would follow to assess alternatives to the proposed undertaking and alternative methods for carrying out the proposed undertaking, and to identify mitigation measures in the EA to address net effects of the preferred undertaking. The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

1.2 Environmental assessment

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

York Region made a draft UYSS EA available to the Government Review Team and all previously notified Aboriginal communities and the public on February 18, 2014; six weeks prior to the formal submission of the UYSS EA.

On July 25, 2014, York Region submitted the UYSS EA to the ministry for approval for the proposed undertaking: a water reclamation centre, a project-specific phosphorous off-setting (POS) program, and modifications to the existing York Durham Sewage System. The EA comment period ended on September 12, 2014.

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

1.3 Ministry review

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

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the Government Review Team (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 of the Environment and Climate Change considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

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

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

The proposed undertaking

2.1 Background

Historical context

In the 1960s the Ontario Water Resources Commission, a former agency of the ministry, undertook a wastewater servicing study in York and Durham Regions in response to concerns about the quality of watercourses. The study demonstrated the need for a new wastewater system to service anticipated growth in both regions. The major issue at that time was the excess phosphorus present in water bodies which was having a negative impact on fish and other aquatic species.

In response to recommendations contained in the study, the York Durham Sewage System, including the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant was built by the ministry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Constructing the York Durham Sewage System allowed for the decommissioning of twelve local wastewater treatment facilities in York and Durham Regions, resulting in a significant improvement in water quality in watercourses such as the Rouge River, Humber River, Don River, and Duffins Creek.

York Durham Sewage System today

The York Durham Sewage System presently consists of a network of trunk sewers, pump stations, and forcemains that convey sewage from the Towns of Whitchurch- Stouffville, Newmarket, Aurora, Richmond Hill, Ajax, and the Cities of Markham, Vaughan, Pickering, and King City, to the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant in the City of Pickering, for treatment and discharge to Lake Ontario. The Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant is jointly owned and operated by York and Durham Regions. York Region owns and operates the trunk sewer network that receives sewage from local municipal collection systems.

To accommodate growth in the UYSS service area, the Regions of Durham and York undertook a Class Environmental Assessment to expand the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant which was completed in 2007 and resulted in the Water Pollution Control Plant having a current approved capacity of 630 megalitres per day. However, the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant capacity is restricted to 540 megalitres per day pending the outcome of the Class Environmental Assessment Addressing Capacity Limitations at the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Outfall project initiated in 2010. The Part II Order requests received for this outfall project are currently under review by the ministry, and being considered independently of this EA process.

The York Durham Sewage System offers many environmentally-sustainable features such as the use of gravity sewers which require less energy to operate; no combined storm and sanitary sewers which minimizes peak flow events within the system; and no bypassing capabilities which prevents untreated sewage flowing directly into Lake Ontario.

Sewage servicing in the UYSS service area is currently provided through local sewers connecting to the existing York Durham Sewage System to the Towns of Aurora and Newmarket. The Holland Landing Water Pollution Control Plant services the Town of East Gwillimbury and a portion of Holland Landing. The Holland Landing, Queensville, Sharon Wastewater Infrastructure Class EA Review and Addendum completed in 2007 recommended a trunk sewer system be constructed to collect wastewater from these communities to be conveyed through the York Durham Sewage System to the Newmarket Pumping Station. This trunk sewer is currently under construction.

The Holland Landing Water Pollution Control Plant will be decommissioned by York Region following the implementation of the proposed undertaking, as the lagoons will no longer be required for sewage servicing. The lagoons will be converted to habitat- providing wetlands.

York Region has pursued water efficiency programs since 1998 and worked to reduce the inflow and infiltration (I/I) of stormwater and groundwater into the York Durham Sewage System as part of an overall objective of water conservation and environmental protection. York Region’s “Water for Tomorrow” report card completed in 2014 states that the approximate overall savings since inception of the program is 26 million litres of water each day.

Study area

The study area for the Upper York Sewage Solutions project extends to areas in the Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Newmarket and Whitchurch-Stouffville (see figure 1). The UYSS service area is located in the Lake Simcoe watershed, which is part of the Lake Huron watershed.

Urban areas occupy the central portion of the study area with agricultural/rural land uses and natural environment features occurring predominantly in the northern third and southeastern limits. There are a number of significant natural heritage designations within the preliminary study area or immediately adjacent to it.

Servicing projections

To manage and direct population growth, the Province of Ontario enacted the Places to Grow Act (2005) and released the Final Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in 2006 (the Growth Plan). In York Region, the Growth Plan established a 2031 population forecast of 1.5 million and an employment forecast of 780,000. As a result, York Region identified the need for additional sewage capacity to service forecasted growth to 2031 in the UYSS service area.

The projected wastewater volumes generated for each municipality in the UYSS service area to the year 2031 were calculated based on the service area unit wastewater generation rates, including an allowance for I/I and population projections. Population and employment projections were determined based on the York Region Official Plan, which was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on September 7, 2010. York Region has completed the UYSS EA to provide a sewage servicing capacity of 47.2 megalitres per day Annual Average Daily Flow to service the forecasted growth to 2031.

Lake Simcoe legislation

To protect and manage the sensitive Lake Simcoe watershed and associated watercourses, the Province of Ontario introduced the Lake Simcoe Protection Act in December 2008. This Act enabled establishment of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan in June 2009. One of the targets identified in the Plan is to reduce total phosphorus loadings to achieve a dissolved oxygen level of 7 milligrams per litre (mg/L) in Lake Simcoe. In other words, the current annual phosphorus loading of 72 tonnes must be reduced to 44 tonnes to reach this target.

The ministry, in collaboration with other stakeholders, developed the Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy which was finalized in June 2010. The strategy is designed to achieve proportional reductions from major contributing sources of phosphorus to Lake Simcoe. The strategy provides a baseline compliance load to be applied to each Water Pollution Control Plant starting in 2015. The baseline compliance load for the Queensville/Holland lagoons, to be achieved by 2015 or the next expansion, is 124 kilograms per year (kg/yr). The total load for Lake Simcoe is 6,995/7,216 kg/yr by 2015.

2.2 Description of the proposed undertaking

The proposed undertaking is composed of the following three integrated components:

• Water Reclamation Centre: a water reclamation centre, with advanced treatment technologies and associated infrastructure, to treat wastewater from East Gwillimbury and the northern portion of Newmarket (see figure 2). The water reclamation centre will produce clean treated water for discharge to an outfall at the East Holland River (see figure 3) and reclaimed water for applications to be identified in the future, which may include agricultural, municipal, or commercial applications. The preferred site for the proposed water reclamation centre is WH1West which is located on 2^nd Concession, one kilometre north of Queensville Sideroad in East Gwillimbury.
• Project-specific Phosphorus Offsets Program: Project-specific phosphorous offsets will be implemented to maintain the total phosphorous load of 124 kg/yr as currently allocated to the existing Holland Landing Water Pollution Control Plant, which would be decommissioned when the undertaking is complete. The proposed project-specific phosphorous offsets program consists of retrofitting seven existing stormwater management ponds, developing a new stormwater management pond, and installing Low Impact Development technologies within an existing stormwater catchment area (see figure 4). Overall, the proposed offsets will improve the water quality and supplement baseflows in the downstream watercourses that ultimately flow into Lake Simcoe.
• Modifications to the Existing York Durham Sewage System: wastewater from Aurora and the remainder of Newmarket would be conveyed by a new forcemain adjacent to an existing York Durham Sewage System forcemain, to link to the existing York Durham Sewage System for treatment and discharge to Lake Ontario (see figure 5). A second new forcemain would be constructed to convey wastewater from the existing Bogart Creek Pumping Station to the new Newmarket forcemain. Modifications would be made to the Newmarket and Bogart Creek Pumping Stations to connect the new forcemains for treatment at the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant and discharge to Lake Ontario. These modifications will also provide additional system reliability during high flow conditions.

If EAA approval is granted, York Region would be required to complete the proposed undertaking in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA, and any conditions of approval. In addition, York Region must obtain all other legislative and regulatory approvals it may require for the undertaking.

Construction timing

York Region plans to implement the UYSS in three steps: 1) detailed design and permitting; 2) tendering and construction; and 3) operation. The detailed design and permitting associated with all three components of the undertaking is expected to be completed by the end of 2016. Tendering and construction for the water reclamation centre is expected to be completed between 2020 and 2024, between 2020 and 2022 for the project-specific phosphorus offsets program, and between 2017 and mid-2019 for the York Durham Sewage System modifications. The projected operational start-up for the water reclamation centre, the project-specific phosphorous offsets program and the York Durham Sewage System modifications are end of 2024, 2022 and 2019, respectively. All three components are anticipated to be operational to 2031.

The reclaimed water infrastructure, such as the pumping and bulk loading stations, will be included in the detailed design undertaken for the water reclamation centre but will not be constructed until reclaimed water customers have been confirmed and contracted, after which detailed design, construction and operation of the reclaimed water distribution system will be undertaken. An operational start-up date has not been identified.

Figure 1

A map of the study / service areas and their location within the boundaries of the Regional Municipality of York, dated June 24, 2014. The map also shows the proposed Water Reclamation Centre Site and Stormwater Management Retrofit locations, as well the existing pumping stations and sewage systems.

Figure 2

Site plan of the proposed Water Reclamation Centre, dated July 2014. The proposed site is adjacent to a hydro corridor and the future approved Bradford Bypass.

Figure 3

A site plan of the proposed Outfall Channel, dated July 2014. It shows the property lines, proposed easement location, and treated water outfall sewer running parallel to Queensville Sideroad.

Figure 4

A map of the proposed Urban Stormwater Management Retrofit Opportunities (Phosphorous Off-Setting Program), dated July 2014. It shows proposed development locations in relation to the service / study areas, municipal and regional boundaries, subwatershed boundary, forested areas, and protected countryside.

Figure 5

A map of the preferred route for York Durham Sewage System Modifications, dated July 16, 2014. The map shows construction methods for each section of the route, as well as features such as rivers, forests, wetlands, trails, utility lines, and rail lines.

Results of the ministry review

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

3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The ministry coordinated an analysis of the EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the ToR have been met. The ministry has concluded the EA followed the framework outlined in the ToR, and has addressed the commitments made in the ToR. In addition, the EA has satisfied the requirements of the EAA.

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 taken prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the ToR.

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

Government Review Team

Consultation with the Government Review Team was conducted throughout the EA process. This included pre-submission discussions; technical meetings with ministry staff, the Review Agency Advisory Committee, and key members of the Government Review Team; and providing an opportunity to review the draft EA. Many of the comments provided on the draft EA were incorporated into the final EA. A summary of the comments provided on the draft EA and York Region’s responses can be found in Section 7 of the EA.

York Region established a Review Agency Advisory Committee, comprised of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Lake Simcoe and Toronto and Region Conservation Authorities, and the Towns of Georgina, Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Newmarket, Richmond Hill and Whitchurch-Stouffville, to provide an opportunity for agencies with regulatory authority and representatives of local municipalities to have focused in-depth discussions. A Review Agency Advisory Committee Roles and Responsibilities document was established to guide the mandate of the Committee.

Members of the Government Review Team were provided copies of the final EA for their review during the seven-week comment period. Comments on the final EA were received by the ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of Transportation, the Town of Georgina, York Region Public Health, and Hydro One. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, the Town of Aurora and York Region Emergency Medical Services had no further comments or concerns with the proposed undertaking.

All comments received by the ministry were forwarded to York Region for a response. A summary of the comments and York Region’s responses can be found in Table 1 of this Review.

Public consultation

York Region used a variety of consultation methods to consult with the public including: community and individual meetings; public meetings, which included Public Information Forums, Workshops, and Open Houses; and maintained a project office, and a project website.

York Region established a Community Liaison Forum to provide an opportunity for in- depth discussions of project issues with a representative group of interested participants. The Forum was comprised of local residents, property owners, association representatives and business and community leaders.

The UYSS project office was opened in March 2009 to provide interested stakeholders the option of dropping in during business hours to speak with the project team about the undertaking. Tuesday Talks were held at the project office the first Tuesday of each month from spring 2010 until winter 2014. Between May 2010 and January 2014 a total of nine public meetings were held.

Notifications were provided in advance of each Public Information Forum. Invitations were sent to the Government Review Team, Review Agency Advisory Committee, and potentially interested Aboriginal communities via direct mail or email. As required by the approved amended ToR, York Region published its Notice of Commencement, notices of Public Information Forums and submission of the EA in local newspapers and updated the project website at various points during the development of the EA.

York Region made copies of the draft EA and its supporting documents available to members of the public for comment. The Notice of Submission of the final EA was published on July 10, 2014 in the Newmarket Era, the East Gwillimbury Express, and the Georgina Advocate. A contact database was maintained throughout the EA process.

One letter was received from a member of the public on the EA report. Overall support was expressed for the water reclamation centre. Some suggestions were made regarding reducing/reusing the cake sludge by-product, and concerns were raised which are discussed in Section 3.3.1 of this Review. This comment is documented in Table 3.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the EAA requirement that interested persons be consulted, proponents are required to consult with aboriginal communities who have credibly asserted or established aboriginal or treaty rights that may potentially be negatively impacted by the proposed undertaking.

York Region developed a list of potentially impacted Aboriginal communities and provided them with information on the EA throughout the process. The initial list of Aboriginal communities that were contacted included:

• Alderville First Nation
• Beausoleil First Nation
• Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation
• Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (Rama)
• Curve Lake First Nation
• Hiawatha First Nation
• Huron Wendat
• Iroquois Confederacy
• Kawartha-Nishnawbe of Burleigh Falls
• Métis Nation of Ontario
• Métis National Council
• Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
• Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation
• Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation
• Moose Deer Point First Nation
• Six Nations of the Grand River
• Williams Treaty First Nation

This list was developed in consultation with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. During preparation of the EA, the above communities were kept informed on the progress of the EA, and received a copy of the Draft EA to review and provide comments on.

Input was obtained through group meetings, written and email correspondence. As was done during the development of the ToR, First Nations Engineering Services Limited facilitated consultation with participating First Nations (the Chippewas of Georgina Island, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, the Mississaugas of the New Credit, the Hiawatha, the Alderville, the Chippewas of Rama, the Curve Lake, and the Coordinator of the Williams Treaty First Nations) on behalf of York Region. First Nations Engineering Services Limited contacted the First Nations directly by letter during each consultation round advising about project updates and invitations to group meetings. In total, six group meetings were held between May 2010 and July 2013. All meetings were held at Casino Rama except the meeting in April 2012 which was held at the project office to facilitate a tour of the Advanced Treatment Demonstration Facility, as requested by the attending First Nations.

With the exception of the Kawartha-Nishnawbe of Burleigh Falls First Nation, a Protocol for First Nations Consultation was established between York Region and the above listed First Nations. In addition to undertaking separate consultation with the Kawartha- Nishnawbe of Burleigh Falls First Nation, York Region developed a Technical Review Communications Protocol with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in response to the First Nation’s request for funding.

The Métis Council of Ontario and Métis National Council were both contacted separately during each consultation round of the EA preparation; however neither organization requested a meeting with York Region.

York Region met with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation at the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation Community Centre on December 5, 2011. Further correspondence was received from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation between December 2011 and February 2012. In March 2012, the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation requested funding from York Region to conduct an independent review of the UYSS EA. A Technical Review Protocol was developed to establish roles and responsibilities of the participants, the review process, and identify the documents to be reviewed. The Protocol was finalized in July 2012 and funding was provided to FHR Incorporated, a water and wastewater consultant, as directed by the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. Subsequently, eight meetings were held to allow York Region to present an overview of the documents, followed by meetings to review and discuss FHR Incorporated comments, in accordance with the Protocol. Ministry staff were present as observers at many of the meetings.

At the request of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, York Region held a community meeting on Georgina Island on February 26, 2013 to provide a general overview of the project and address comments and concerns.

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation submitted comments on the draft EA on April 2014. Concerns raised included those regarding the process for review of documents, effect of the project and pharmaceuticals and personal care products on aquatic species, concerns with pollutants such as phosphorus, nitrate-nitrogen and unionized ammonia; concerns with phosphorus offsetting program, climate change impacts to the project, and a request for reporting by York Region to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. A technical review summary was also completed by FHR Incorporated for the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation on March 4, 2014. York Region met with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation on June 17, 2014 to discuss the EA process undertaken to date and next steps, and responded to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation’s April 2014 comments on June 27, 2014. The comments can be found in Appendix B, and meeting summaries in Volume 3 of the UYSS EA.

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation submitted comments on the EA on September 19, 2014. York Region responded to the September 19, 2014 comments by holding a meeting on January 27, 2015. In response to the meeting minutes and a revised comment table submitted to the ministry on March 13, 2015 and shared with Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, additional correspondence was received from Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation on April 21, 2015 restating some of its concerns on the draft EA. A follow-up phone call from the ministry on September 28, 2015 with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation confirmed that the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation would send additional comments. A letter was submitted on December 1, 2015 which stated that the undertaking will affect the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation’s treaty rights and discussed previously-raised concerns in further detail. Refer to Section 3.3 of this Review for further discussion of the issues raised by the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation and how they were addressed by York Region.

York Region provided the final EA to all of the above noted Aboriginal communities, with the exception of the Six Nations of the Grand River who indicated in February 2014 that it was not interested in reviewing the UYSS EA. The Aboriginal communities most interested in the UYSS EA were the Alderville First Nation, the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, the Curve Lake First Nation, the Hiawatha First Nation, and the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation.

The Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation returned a notice of submission receipt on September 19, 2014 and indicated that it is satisfied that the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation have taken the lead insofar as the First Nation is concerned and that ultimately its issues have been captured in the record.

In a follow-up call to Curve Lake First Nation on November 5, 2014 the First Nation indicated that it recognizes the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation as being the most affected community and as such support them in comments they have submitted on the proposal.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation advised that it had no concerns with the UYSS EA. No responses or acknowledgements were received from the remaining Aboriginal communities.

A summary of comments submitted by the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation can be found in Table 2.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The EAA requires that the proponent consult with all interested persons during the preparation of the EA and report on the results of that consultation. The UYSS EA documents the proposed on-going consultation plan during construction and operation of the proposed undertaking.

The description of consultation with Aboriginal communities included in the EA was at first incomplete. In response to this, York Region provided additional information on consultation with Aboriginal communities and how these communities were provided opportunities to comment during the EA process.

The EA adequately describes the consultation that was undertaken and the outcomes of the various consultation activities / events. The ministry is satisfied that the level of consultation undertaken with the public and Government Review Team was appropriate for this proposed undertaking.

Overall, the ministry believes that York Region provided sufficient opportunities for the public, interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the EA. The ministry recognizes that in the case of Aboriginal communities, consultation will continue as the project progresses.

The ministry is satisfied that the consultation carried out meets the requirements of the EAA and follows the outline as approved in the 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.

Through the review of the final EA, staff of the ministry determined whether or not York Region followed the EA process and incorporated commitments in the approved ToR into the final EA that was submitted for review and a decision.

The ministry found that York Region followed a logical and transparent decision making process that was outlined in the EA. Refer to Appendix A of this Review for the ministry’s analysis of how the EA met the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR.

The UYSS EA was prepared in accordance with section 6.1(1) of the EAA. The alternatives to that York Region examined in the EA were:

1. Do Nothing
2. Discharge to Lake Ontario
3. Discharge to Lake Simcoe
4. Innovative Wastewater Treatment Technologies

In the EA, an explanation of each of the alternatives to the undertaking examined can be found in Section 3.2. The alternatives to the undertaking were assessed through a four step process: confirm the 15 screening criteria proposed in the approved amended ToR; apply the 15 screening criteria; identify the advantages and disadvantages; and identify the preferred alternative to the undertaking.

Discharge to Lake Ontario and Innovative Wastewater Treatment Technologies were found to be the preferred alternatives to the undertaking. The latter, which would become known as the Water Reclamation Centre alternative, was identified as the preferred alternative because it offered a number of additional benefits. The preferred alternative consisted of three integrated components: a water reclamation centre; a project-specific phosphorous offsets program and modifications to the existing York Durham Sewage System.

In accordance with the approved ToR, a preliminary study area was identified as extending north to Lake Simcoe, east to Woodbine Avenue, south to 19^th Avenue and west to Bathurst Street. This study area encompasses the UYSS service area and includes the Towns of Richmond Hill, Aurora, Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, and Whitchurch-Stouffville. This study area was used to assess the potential impacts on the environment of the alternatives to the undertaking and the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking. A description of the environment potentially affected by the undertaking for each of the study areas is provided in Section 3.3 of the EA.

In the EA, an explanation of each of the alternative methods examined and the methodology followed to identify the preferred alternative method for carrying out the undertaking can be found in Section 4.

Twenty two potential sites were screened using desktop information and a willing host process to arrive at a short list of five possible sites. The short list and associated conveyance infrastructure underwent a comparative evaluation using a total of 26 criteria associated with technical, natural, built, social, economic, cultural and financial factors, through which the preferred site (WH1 West) was identified. Three alternative routes for the York Durham Sewage System modifications were evaluated using similar criteria, after which Route A was identified as the preferred alternative. Six total phosphorus off-setting opportunities were considered for stormwater management retrofits based on natural environment and land use criteria. Urban stormwater management with a total phosphorus off-set ratio of 3:1 was selected as the preferred alternative.

Section 5 of the EA provides a detailed description of the three components that comprise the preferred alternative and assesses potential impacts to the environment, including mitigation measures proposed by York Region to reduce any potential effects on the environment, in accordance with the requirements of the EAA and the approved ToR. This section also includes a summary of the potential effects, proposed mitigation measures and resulting net effects of the preferred alternative. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the net effects of the proposed undertaking is also provided in Section 5.6 of the EA.

The EA details the impact management measures, monitoring and contingency plans proposed by York Region. The mitigation measures are commitments that York Region has made to ensure that potential negative effects of the undertaking are reduced and that potential positive effects of the undertaking are enhanced. Commitments and monitoring for the proposed undertaking are described in Section 6 of the EA. A summary of environmental effects monitoring is provided in Table 6.1.

Section 7 of the EA provides details about consultation undertaken with the Government Review Team, public and Aboriginal communities during the EA. Section 8 outlines the approvals required for the proposed undertaking and Section 9 sets out a process for amending the EA.

3.2.1 Conclusion

Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the Government Review Team, is satisfied with York Region’s decision making process, including demonstrating the rationale for the proposed undertaking. The EA contains an explanation of the problem that prompted the EA and provides an innovative opportunity to address the problem. York Region 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 areas and identifies potential effects of the alternatives. The EA also includes monitoring and contingency plans to ensure any potential negative impacts of the undertaking are minimized. York Region has demonstrated that it considered the effects of climate change on the proposed undertaking, and the cumulative effects of the proposed undertaking.

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, Government Review Team and Aboriginal communities have been met. The ministry is satisfied that the EA was completed in accordance with the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA.

3.3 Comments on the undertaking

Comments on the undertaking were submitted by the Government Review Team, the public and Aboriginal communities during the 7 week EA review period. Generally, the following issues were identified:

• Effects on water quality, aquatic species
• Effects on Aboriginal communities:
• Effects from construction
• Effects during UYSS operation
• Technical feasibility

In general, the ministry was satisfied that the issues were addressed in the responses by York Region. These submissions, York Region’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction with the responses can be found in Tables 1-3.

3.3.1 Key issues

The key issues raised with respect to the undertaking include:

Government Review Team comments

Technical staff at the ministry indicated that the study “Stormwater Pond Maintenance and Anoxic Conditions Investigation – Final Report (2011)” by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority raises doubts with the phosphorus removal efficiencies of stormwater management ponds. The ministry therefore recommended York Region undertake monitoring of the stormwater management ponds proposed to be retrofitted for the offset program. This monitoring would provide realistic phosphorus removal values for the ponds, ensuring that the phosphorus load for the undertaking required by Lake Simcoe legislation would be met by the water reclamation centre and the offsetting program; and that the health of Lake Simcoe would be maintained. In December 2015 York Region committed to monitor one of the retrofitted stormwater management ponds for one year. The ministry acknowledges York Region’s response, with the understanding that details of the monitoring program will be finalized in the Environmental Compliance Approval if the undertaking as described in the EA is approved. In order to ensure that the undertaking will meet regulatory requirements and to ensure that the monitoring plan is undertaken to the satisfaction of the ministry, a condition of approval is being considered requiring a monitoring plan for the retrofitted stormwater management ponds.

According to the ministry’s “Design Guidelines for Sewage Works, 2008,” design effluent quality objectives must be determined before a sewage treatment plant is designed. This ensures that the compliance limits for pollutants set out by the ministry can consistently be achieved, and that the health of the effluent- receiving water body is protected. A water reclamation centre effluent design objective for phosphorus was not provided in the EA. The ministry therefore recommended a monthly average phosphorus concentration design objective to York Region, which the Region agreed to in December 2015 (a monthly average design objective for total phosphorus of 0.04 milligrams per litre (mg/L) and a monthly average concentration limit for total phosphorus of 0.06 mg/L). The commitments made by York Region for phosphorus concentrations in water reclamation centre effluent will be written into the Environmental Compliance Approval for the facility, if the undertaking is approved.

The ministry was concerned with the long-term plan for the reverse osmosis concentrate, which was presented only conceptually in the EA, and proposed that the reverse osmosis concentrate will be eventually blended with reverse osmosis permeate (clean treated water) then discharged to the East Holland River. The ministry raised the unproven nature of and uncertainties with the proposed strategy, and the potential effects of the reverse osmosis concentrate on water quality if it did not meet the operational parameters proposed by York Region. York Region, in response to the ministry’s comments on the draft EA, incorporated commitments in Section 6.2 of the EA to pilot test and validate an on-site reverse osmosis concentrate treatment process prior to implementing the full-scale process. In order to ensure that the long-term treatment process is tested and developed with ministry involvement and that full-scale implementation will meet ministry requirements, a condition of approval is being considered requiring York Region to complete a pilot testing and validation plan for the reverse osmosis concentrate at the water reclamation centre to the satisfaction of the ministry.

The ministry has outstanding concerns with reclaimed water usage including finding potential customers; regulatory framework for production, distribution and end use of reclaimed water; and the development of project-specific reuse guidelines. The ministry concluded that if this undertaking as described in the EA is approved, this would not constitute approval for potential future water reclamation projects and water reuse applications, which would undergo separate review processes by the ministry. Matters regarding reclaimed water are to be further discussed by York Region and the ministry at the detail design stage of the undertaking.

Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the commitments made by York Region in response to the comments made by the ministry’s Government Review Team members. The ministry is considering reinforcing these commitments through conditions if the undertaking is approved.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry raised concerns about the unknown effects of the undertaking on fish and aquatic life. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry maintains that the best approach to these unknowns is an adaptive management approach where the monitoring plans support mitigative actions, if required. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has stated that the UYSS EA should be clearer in how changes to the aquatic community will be mitigated, specifically caused by alterations in water temperature, water velocity, water level and water quality.

The ministry consulted with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry further in November 2015 to attempt to resolve the remaining concerns with the EA. In December 2015, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry provided additional comments which outlined minimum requirements for a monitoring plan for the water reclamation centre outfall into the East Holland River, and a supporting adaptive management strategy.

York Region has committed to continuing to work collaboratively with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on aquatic and terrestrial monitoring programs for the undertaking as well as an adaptive management strategy. In response to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s December 2015 comments, York Region has committed to collecting three years of pre-construction monitoring as requested by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. To enforce this commitment, the ministry is considering a condition requiring a monitoring plan and supporting adaptive management strategy to be developed for the East Holland River near the water reclamation centre outfall in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the commitments made by York Region in response to the comments made by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, which may be enforced through a condition of approval.

Aboriginal community comments

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation raised concerns with the undertaking throughout the EA process. Both York Region and the ministry have been corresponding and meeting with the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in an effort resolve these concerns.

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation’s concerns include:

• To ensure the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation is appropriately consulted, the First Nation requests that York Region hire aboriginal community members as part of construction and for future monitoring.
• The UYSS impacts the First Nation’s Treaty rights and has the potential to affect its health and drinking water.
• Insufficient study was done or insufficient time was allocated to studies to determine to negative effects on aquatic species or the aquatic environment.
• The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation should have the opportunity to hire its own consultant to review all the studies conducted for the proposed project in terms of climate change and to ensure that Traditional Ecological Knowledge of the First Nation is taken into consideration, and York Region should provide funding.
• Microconstituents/ pharmaceutical and personal care products in water reclamation centre effluent are a major concern to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation.
• The Adaptive Management Plan being developed by York Region and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry should have a Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation representative participate and should be presented to the First Nation before being finalized.

In response to the above concerns regarding consultation, York Region responded that the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation was provided several consultation opportunities as outlined in Section 3.1.2 of this Review. To summarize, the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation was provided the opportunity to review all UYSS EA documentation in accordance with the ToR. A separate Technical Review Communications Protocol was also prepared by York Region as requested by Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, which was finalized and signed by both York Region and the First Nation in July 2012. In response to concerns with funding, York Region responded that it provided funding to review EA documentation as requested by Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation. Several reports that were reviewed by the First Nation as part of the signed Technical Review Communication Protocol were updated following a September 2013 meeting with York Region to reflect Government Review Team, public and Aboriginal community input.

Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the consultation opportunities provided to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation by York Region throughout the EA process and ongoing opportunities committed to in the EA. In order ensure the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation are meaningfully consulted as the project proceeds, the ministry is considering a condition of approval requiring that York Region provide Aboriginal communities, especially the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, further consultation opportunities throughout project design, construction and operation.

With respect to pharmaceutical and personal care products, York Region has responded to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation that the secondary biological treatment combined with the advanced wastewater purification technologies proposed for the water reclamation centre are proven to be extremely effective in reducing concentrations of pharmaceutical and personal care products. As a result, the treated water will have either non-detectable or extremely low concentrations of pharmaceutical and personal care products. The literature review undertaken as part of the EA concluded that if pharmaceutical and personal care products exist within wastewater, each successive treatment level at a water pollution control plant provides an additional level of microconstituent removal. The ministry is also conducting studies to investigate the effectiveness of different water treatment technologies to reduce pharmaceuticals and other emerging contaminants found in wastewater across the province.

With regard to concerns about the undertaking’s impacts to water quality, the aquatic environment, aquatic species and human health, York Region has committed to a monitoring program as well as an adaptive management strategy in the EA.

Overall, the ministry is satisfied with the commitments made by York Region in response to concerns with the undertaking’s effects on water quality and aquatic health. To address the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation’s concerns on aquatic species/habitat and water quality the ministry is proposed in a condition of approval requiring York Region to provide the monitoring plan/adaptive management strategy for the East Holland River, being considered as a condition of approval, to the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation for awareness/comments.

Public comments

A member of the public raised concerns with the pharmaceutical and personal care products in plant effluent. York Region’s response to this was described in the Aboriginal comments section above. In order to address concerns with pharmaceutical and personal care products and concerns with the project’s effect on water quality, the ministry is considering a condition to require York Region to submit a monitoring plan/adaptive management strategy for the East Holland River.

The member of the public also recommended York Region examine innovative solutions to reduce/reuse the sewage ‘cake’ waste from the facility. York Region responded that while initially wastewater flows to the water reclamation centre would be so low that on- site biosolids processing and storage would be impractical, as wastewater flows increase, York Region would construct these on-site facilities at the proposed water reclamation centre. The on-site solids handling facilities would eventually be expanded to include waste activated sludge thickening, biosolids processing (anaerobic digestion, and dewatering), and storage facilities. Anaerobic digestion recovers energy from the sludge in the form of biogas, which can be utilized for space heating at the proposed water reclamation centre. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

The member of the public also raised concerns with the undertaking’s potential effects on increased surface runoff and flooding. York Region replied that elevation of the constructed water reclamation centre will be above the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Regulatory Floodplain and the water reclamation centre would remain operational during a regional storm event. The ministry is satisfied with this response.

Overall, the ministry is satisfied with York Region’s responses to comments from the public.

3.3.2 Conclusion

Ministry staff are satisfied that the proposed UYSS will be designed and operated to comply with the ministry’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 York Region in support of future approval applications, if the undertaking as described in 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 undertaking is approved by the Minister, conditions specific to the proposed undertaking may be imposed by the Minister to ensure the environment remains protected.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the ministry’s analysis for the Upper York Sewage Solutions EA.

This Review concludes:

• That the EA complies with the requirements of the approved amended 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 alternatives to and alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking, assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives to and 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 ministry is satisfied that York Region provided sufficient opportunities for the Government Review Team, public, stakeholders, and Aboriginal communities to comment during the development of the EA. Concerns raised regarding the undertaking have been addressed by York Region 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 imposed 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. Project-specific conditions are also being considered for the undertaking, including requiring monitoring/management and pilot testing, to ensure that the undertaking is achieving the proposed parameters for phosphorus and that the environment is protected. A condition is also being considered to require that York Region to continue to consult with affected Aboriginal communities as the project design progresses, to address the concerns expressed by the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation.

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

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

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking;
• Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions; or
• 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, York Region will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Section 8.0 of the EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include:

Municipal and regional approvals

Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Newmarket, York Region, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Utility Authorities:

• Sanitary-storm sewer Discharge Permit
• Tree cutting Permit
• Site Plan Approval and Building Permits
• Property Agreements (Easements, encroachment agreements)
• Road Occupancy Permits
• Noise By-Law
• Fill By-Law
• Haul Road Approvals
• Open Cut Permits
• Discharge to Sewer Permits
• Fill and Topsoil Removal Approval
• Potential Relocation Utilities (phone, gas, cable etc.)
• Consent from utility authorities (York Region, Enbridge Inc., Hydro One, Bell Canada, Rogers Cable, Powerstream, Allstream)
• Permit for Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses
• Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Surface Water Management Plan

Provincial approvals

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

• Permits To Take Water (Ontario Water Resources Act)
• Environmental Compliance Approval – Municipal Sewage Works (Ontario Water Resources Act)
• Environmental Compliance Approval – Air and Noise (Environmental Protection Act)

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

• Overall Benefit Permit – Endangered Species Act
• Approval under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

• Compliance Letter – Ontario Heritage Act

Go Transit

• Consent

Infrastructure Ontario

• Consent – Ministry of Infrastructure Public Work Class EA Requirements

Federal Approvals

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

• Letter of Advice or Authorization – Fisheries Act

Transport Canada

• York Region to confirm if Navigation Protection Act applies during detail design

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

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Section 9 of the EA describes York Region’s proposed procedure for amending the EA in recognition of the fact that there could be changes to the proposed undertaking during detail design and/or construction.

York Region has proposed that any required change first be reviewed by the Region and grouped into one of three categories:

1. No amendment required
2. Minor amendment required
3. Major amendment required

York Region has proposed to review any unforeseen change to the proposed undertaking to determine its significance in relation to the following:

• net effect on the environment
• an interested participant
• a commitment made in the EA, subject to any conditions of Approval

If York Region determines that the change is negligible, then no amendment would be required. If the change resulted in an “increased potential adverse effect” then it would be categorized as either a minor or major amendment.

Minor amendments would not alter the proposed undertaking significantly in terms of what, where, and/or how it would be built. York Region has proposed that minor amendments would be addressed without requesting formal approval from the Minister, but will require concurrence from the ministry’s Director of the Environmental Approvals Branch and be subject to any conditions of approval and applicable legislation as required prior to construction.

Major amendments would alter the proposed undertaking significantly in terms of what, where, and/or how it would be built. York Region has proposed that major amendments would be addressed through the completion of a new EA process.

The EA indicates that any changes to the proposed undertaking that have been categorized as either a minor or a major amendment based on the increased potential adverse effect are subject to discussions with the ministry’s Environmental Approvals Branch and concurrence from the Environmental Approvals Branch Director.

Appendices

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act requirements

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

Contents are available in hard copy at:
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Approvals Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1^st Floor
Toronto, Ontario
Voice: 416-314-8001/1-800-461-6290
Fax: 416-314-8452

Table 1: Government Review Team comment summary table

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Other ministries

Other Government Agencies

¹

Column 3: WRC TP Load that exceeds the 124 kg TP Cap = (WRC Flow (MLD) x 0.02 mg/L WRC TP x 365 days) – 124 kg TP Cap.
Column 4: is consistent at 350 kg of TP off‑sets obtained each year from 2017 to 2027 and 504 kg of TPoff‑sets obtained each year from 2028 to 2031.
Column 5: Annual TP Off‑Sets Ratio = TP Off‑Sets Obtained (kg) / WRC TP Load (kg) that exceeds 124kg TP Cap
Total: provides a sum of the WRC TP load that exceeds the 124 kg TP cap from 2023 to 2031 (823 kg) and a sum of the TP off‑sets obtained from 2017 to 2031 (5,866 kg). This equates to a net benefit of (5,866kg – 823kg = ) 5,043kg.

²

Column 3: WRC TP Load that exceeds the 124 kg TP Cap = (WRC Flow (MLD) x 0.02 mg/L WRC TP x 365 days) – 124 kg TP Cap.
Column 4: is consistent at 350 kg of TP off‑sets obtained each year from 2017 to 2027 and 504 kg of TP off‑sets obtained each year from 2028 to 2031.
Column 5: Annual TP Off‑Sets Ratio = TP Off‑Sets Obtained (kg) / WRC TP Load (kg) that exceeds 124kg TP Cap
Total: provides a sum of the WRC TP load that exceeds the 124 kg TP cap from 2023 to 2031 (823 kg) and a sum of the TP off‑sets obtained from 2017 to 2031 (5,866 kg). This equates to a net benefit of (5,866kg – 823kg = ) 5,043kg.

Table 2: Aboriginal Communities Comment Summary Table

Table 3: Public Comment Summary Table

³

Proposed Water Reclamation Centre

Proposed Project-Specific Phosphorous Off-Setting Program

York Durham Sewage System

Appendix C: Supplemental information

Contents are available in hard copy at the public record locations listed in this ministry review.