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

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was October 2, 2009. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.

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

Executive summary

Who

Region of York and Region of Durham

What

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

  • Construction of a new southeast Collector (SEC) Trunk Sewer in combination with implementing other water efficiency and inflow/infiltration (I/I) reduction measures
  • The new SEC Trunk Sewer includes construction of related facilities including:
    • Construction shafts
    • Corrosion control facility
    • Diversion chamber
    • Odour control facility
    • Meter facility
    • Maintenance chambers
    • Air fan buildings
    • Air dam
    • Interconnection chamber
    • Central Duffin’s collector chamber
    • Connection chamber
    • Construction compounds

When

  • EA submitted: November 28, 2008
  • Initial inspection period: November 28, 2008 to January 23, 2009
  • Notice of completion of the ministry review extension period: February 2009 to October 2009.
  • Ministry Review Inspection Period: October 16, 2009 to November 20, 2009.

Where

The study area is generally bounded by 16th Avenue/Highway 7 to the north, 9th Line to the west, Finch Avenue to the south, and the Pickering/Ajax municipal boundary to the east.

The preferred SEC Trunk Sewer route begins just north of Box Grove in the Town of Markham; from there it follows along 14th Avenue to Townline Road. It turns south and follows Townline Road to the Hydro corridor, crossing into the City of Pickering, traveling east along the Hydro corridor to Liverpool Road. The route proceeds south on Liverpool Road to Finch Avenue, continuing east on Finch Avenue and ending at Valley Farm Road in the City of Pickering.

Why

Construction of a new SEC Trunk Sewer is necessary to address the additional sanitary sewer flows projected from future growth, as allowed for in York Region’s approved Regional Official Plan. No sanitary sewer flows from Durham Regionwill be accommodated by the proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer. Increasing programs aimed to increase water efficiency will provide additional capacity in the existing SEC Trunk Sewer and will also reduce the potential for basement flooding and sewage spills. I/I reduction measures are expected to reduce wet weather flows from entering the SEC Trunk Sewer and the entire York-Durham Sewage System (YDSS).

Conclusions

Concerns were raised by government agencies and the public about the EA during the initial comment period. The Regions requested additional time to address the concerns raised and to amend their EA. An amended EA was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment on August 21, 2009. The Ministry Review concludes that the amended EA meets the requirements of the approved Terms of Reference and the Environmental Assessment Act. There are some outstanding concerns that remain which need to be addressed prior to a decision being made about the SEC Trunk Sewer EA.

Environmental assessment process

Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent led planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision-making by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) 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 predicted 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 proponents must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

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 MOE for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.

On October 1, 2004, in response to submissions concerning York Region’s YDSS projects proposed under the Municipal Engineers Association’s Class EA, the Minister issued a Part II Order under the EAA requiring York Region to undertake an individual EA for the proposed southeast Collector (SEC) Trunk Sewer. The Minister also set out direction with regard to the preparation and content of the ToR in the form of eight commitments that York Region was required to fulfil during the preparation of the EA. The eight commitments are as follows:

  1. Identify and assess alternative routes
  2. Develop monitoring and mitigation measures for any dewatering activities, including measures that address potential impacts to well users and the natural environment
  3. Include among the criteria used to compare the alternative the following: dewatering activities and impacts on existing water users and on all local surface, groundwater and natural heritage features. Data and baseline information must be collected for this purpose by conducting pump tests and modelling
  4. Address all reasonable alternative design and construction techniques associated with the preferred alternative selected as the proposed undertaking. In doing this, the impacts of all design and construction techniques on all local natural heritage features need to be included as well as the preferred design and construction techniques and reason for their selection
  5. Ensure that all technical studies prepared as part of the EA are peer reviewed by appropriate experts and document the review in the EA
  6. Prepare a technical analysis of the impacts of dewatering as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternate routes
  7. Prepare a detailed dewatering evaluation of the preferred alternative selected as the proposed undertaking
  8. Ensure that all technical studies for the preferred alternative selected as the proposed undertaking are carried out to a level of detail and information that would be required for an application for a Certificate of Approval and Permit to Take Water under the Ontario Water Resources Act

In addition, the Minister extended the project limits from the location of the York/Durham boundary meter chamber to Valley Farm Road in Durham Region, making York Region and Durham Region co-proponents for the proposed SEC Trunk Sewer.

On February 28, 2006, the Minister approved the SEC Trunk Sewer ToR submitted by the Regions of York and Durham (Regions). The approved ToR set out how the Regions would assess alternatives, assess potential environmental effects and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The approved ToR established the problems and opportunities within the defined study area, and committed to a study process that would allow for a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated to address the problem statement. The approved ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.

The approved ToR also committed the Regions to the preparation of an Ecological Enhancement Program (Program), which is intended to go beyond the typical mitigation requirements required as part of the EA. The Program consists of five types of enhancement categories including: improvements to ecological health; improvements to hydrological and hydrogeological function; establishment or enhancement of recreation amenities; establishment or enhancement of local infrastructure; and, establishment or enhancement of cultural heritage.

The approved 2006 ToR met the requirements of the Part II Order issued by a previous Minister.

Environmental assessment

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

On November 28, 2008, the Regions submitted the SEC Trunk Sewer EA to the MOE for review and a decision for the proposed construction of a new SEC Trunk Sewer in combination with implementing other water efficiency and infill/infiltration (I/I) reduction measures. The November 2008 EA was made available for a seven week government agency and public comment period from November 28, 2008 until January 23, 2009.

Ministry review

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

The EAA requires the MOE to prepare a review of the EA, known simply as the Ministry Review (Review). The Review is the MOE’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. MOE staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed impact management measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, government agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

The Minister considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision; the Review itself is not the EA decision-making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be made following the end of the five-week Review comment period. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns about 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 concerns 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. During the Review comment period, mediation can also be requested on any matter relating to the EA if there are outstanding concerns that the requester believes can be addressed through mediation.

The proposed undertaking

Background

The entire YDSS consists of over 120 kilometres (km) of sewer pipe, pumping stations, and forcemains which service York’s municipalities of Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Aurora, Markham, Vaughan, and Durham’s municipalities of Pickering and Ajax. The existing SEC Trunk Sewer is the main sewer pipe for sewer flows originating from these communities. The existing SEC Trunk Sewer is approximately 14 km long and consists of a 2.4 metre (m) diameter concrete pipe which travels through parts of York Region, the City of Toronto and Durham Region before it reaches the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (Duffin Creek WPCP) where the sewage is treated prior to being discharged into Lake Ontario.

In order to meet existing and future sewage servicing needs, York Region undertook the 1997 YDSS Master Plan (Master Plan), which identified and assessed sewage servicing alternatives. The result of that process identified both priority and strategic YDSS projects. Priority projects were identified as immediate needs, whereas strategic projects were defined as those required within 10 years of the Master Plan’s completion.

Expansion of the existing SEC Trunk Sewer was identified as a strategic project in the Master Plan. In 2002, to ensure projects defined as “priority” and “strategic” were still relevant, an update to the Master Plan was completed. As a result of the update, expansion of the SEC Trunk Sewer was upgraded from a “strategic” project to a “priority” project based on updated growth projections resulting in increased projected flows. In 2002, it was noted that the existing SEC Trunk Sewer was operating close to its maximum capacity.

The existing SEC Trunk Sewer consists of 23 pipe sections. Currently, the capacity of four pipe sections is already exceeded. This exceedence in capacity is projected to increase to eleven pipe sections by 2011 and 22 pipe sections by 2036. As a result of these projections, additional sewer capacity is required for the SEC Trunk Sewer in order to address the potential for sewage overflows.

Based on the need to address increased projected flows, the Regions, as co-proponents for this project, confirmed in the EA that the rationale for the proposed undertaking is:

to accommodate the additional sanitary sewer flows projected from future growth, as allowed for in York Region’s Official Plan, in accordance with the provincial initiative for growth outlined in the Places to Grow Act. No sanitary sewer flows from Durham Region will be accommodated by the proposed undertaking.

Assessment of alternatives

The SEC Trunk Sewer EA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of section 6.1(2) of the EAA (per the Minister’s Part II Order conditions) which indicate that both “alternatives to” the undertaking, along with “alternative methods” of implementing the undertaking will be assessed.

The Regions proposed a number of “alternatives to” in their approved ToR. The proposed “alternatives to” were confirmed in the EA based on additional consultation and included:

  • Do nothing
  • Limit growth
  • Implement Other Water Efficiency and I/I Reduction Measures
  • Construct a New SEC Trunk Sewer
  • Store and Attenuate Wastewater Flows
  • Store and Transport the Wastewater by Truck
  • Build a New Water Pollution Control Plant

A description of each alternative was provided along with a description of the environment for each of the study areas associated with each alternative as the study areas varied based on the alternative.

Screening criteria were confirmed, based on proposed screening criteria contained in the approved ToR. The screening criteria were as follows:

  • Natural, Social, and Cultural
  • Technical and Financial

Each of the “alternatives to” was screened and ranked based on identification of potential effects on the environment, development of mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures and the determination of net effects on the environment. A comparative evaluation based on the net effects ranked the most preferred to the least preferred alternative based on the identified advantages and disadvantages.

The Regions identified their preferred “alternative to” as “Constructing a New SEC Trunk Sewer in combination with Implementing Other Water Efficiency and I/I Reduction Measures”. This combined alternative was determined following a screening and evaluation process based on potential impacts to the existing natural, social, and cultural environment. The combined alternative that was chosen as the preferred alternative was ranked highest overall with respect to the least potential impacts to the environment.

Following the selection of the preferred alternative, it was necessary for the Regions to determine the preferred “alternative method” of implementing the preferred alternative. The alternative methods consisted of determining the route the new SEC Trunk Sewer would follow and whether the new SEC Trunk Sewer would be a gravity-based system, a pumping/forcemain system, or a combination of the two.

The EA also indicated that the alternative methods of implementing other water efficiency and I/I reduction measures will involve York Region and its local municipalities working together to review their existing programs in order to enhance their effectiveness and generate new measures that will assist York Region in further minimizing sanitary sewer flows. York Region has committed to implementing a Phase 2 Water Efficiency Program, and an I/I Reduction Program. Currently, these two programs have committed funding of over $65 million from York Region over the life of the two programs.

In order to determine the route for the new SEC Trunk Sewer, the Regions first generated a “long list” of 13 alternative sewer routes. This was accomplished through a six-step route generation process aimed at avoiding or minimizing potential adverse effects to the natural, social and cultural environment. The long list was then screened down to a “short list” of 5 routes based on technical, hydrogeological/geotechnical, and financial screening criteria. The five “short-listed” routes were chosen for the following reasons:

  • Maximizes system reliability/reduces operational risk
  • Easier construction/maintenance
  • Shorter route
  • Intercepts low permeable deposits
  • Lower capital costs
  • Adjacent to natural features that are not sensitive or have low sensitivity

Also, as part of the screening process that led to the identification of the short-listed routes, the gravity-based system was identified as the preferred conveyance system over the pumping/forcemain system based on technical hydrogeological/geotechnical, and financial screening criteria for the following reasons:

  • Decreased operational risk and increased system security
  • Easier to construct
  • Requires significantly less maintenance
  • Surface water features are separated by low permeable deposits except for the last 20 per cent of the short-listed routes
  • Potential contaminant sources are generally separated by low permeable deposits for the short-listed routes
  • Provides meaningful savings over the long term
  • Significantly fewer construction related disturbance/disruption effects to surface features

Next, the Regions undertook a comparative evaluation of the five short-listed sewer routes on a “route portion” by “route portion” basis. Each of the five short-listed routes (Routes # 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13) were broken into three route portions. The evaluation compared potential net effects on the technical, natural, social, cultural and financial environment following the application of avoidance/mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures. Once the net effects were determined, advantages and disadvantages to the environment were identified and then the route portions were ranked from most preferred to least preferred for each short-listed sewer route. Finally, the highest ranked route portion within each of the short-listed sewer route portions was combined to select a recommended sewer route.

Alternative sewer route #13 was identified as the recommended sewer route because all three of its route portions were ranked (overall) as first or tied for first relative to the route portions associated with the other four sewer routes. Route #13 was identified as the recommended route for the following reasons:

  • Least potential for dewatering of all routes
  • Shortest length of all routes
  • Lower number of adjacent residences with fewer social effects anticipated including noise/dust/vibrations and construction traffic disruption
  • Ease of construction
  • Option for interconnection with the existing SEC Trunk Sewer
  • Fewest number of land purchases/easements
  • Lowest anticipated groundwater and surface water effects on study area watercourses
  • Lowest capital cost (excluding land acquisition)

Description of the preferred undertaking

Route #13 is 15.2 km long and begins at the existing SEC Trunk Sewer just north of Box Grove in the Town of Markham (see Figure 1) and follows the existing pipe to the southeast where it turns east onto 14th Avenue. It travels east along 14th Avenue until reaching Townline Road (boundary road between the Town of Markham–York Region and the City of Pickering–Durham Region) where it turns south until it meets the Hydro Corridor just south of the 3rd Concession. The route then heads east into Durham Region along the Hydro Corridor until it reaches Liverpool Road where it turns south until it meets Finch Avenue. The route turns east on Finch Avenue and continues until it ends at the intersection of Finch Avenue and Valley Farm Road where it joins the existing SEC Trunk Sewer at a proposed Connection Chamber.

The proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer will operate in conjunction with the existing SEC Trunk Sewer as part of the YDSS. This will allow for maintenance on either sewer in the future and the Regions have indicated that a detailed assessment on the condition of the existing SEC Trunk Sewer will be undertaken once the proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer is in place.

The majority of the proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer will be 3 m in diameter in order to accommodate projected sanitary flows to 2036 (Shaft 4 to Shaft 13). From Shafts 1 to 3, there are several sewer diameters that are possible. The Trunk Sewer will be constructed between 5 m and 40+ m underground. The use of Tunnel Boring Machine equipment in Earthe Pressure Balance mode will allow the tunnel construction to transition from till to aquifers with minimal groundwater impacts. The Regions propose to use single pass tunnel construction which allows for the sewer to be placed and secured as part of the tunnel construction while limiting the time that soil is left unsupported.

The proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer will consist of:

  • 15 Construction Compounds
  • 11 Construction Shafts
  • 3 Maintenance Chambers
  • 2 Air Fan Buildings
  • A Corrosion Control Facility
  • A Diversion Chamber
  • A Meter Facility
  • An Odour Control Facility
  • An Air Dam
  • The Central Duffin’s Collector Chamber
  • An Interconnection Chamber
  • A Connection Chamber

In total, there will be 15 Construction Compounds along the proposed route for the new SEC Trunk Sewer. These secure compounds are required at every shaft for equipment and material storage, construction operations, and site security. The compounds associated with the construction shafts vary in size from approximately 631 square metres (m2) (0.15 acres) to 33,560 m2 (8.3 acres). As required, supplemental construction facilities will be located at the construction shafts and may include a grout batching plant, tunnel liner segment storage, soil dewatering facilities and construction water treatment facilities. Construction shaft sites may be in place for up to a year or longer.

The Diversion Chamber (Shaft 13) will be located at Ninthe Line, south of Highway 407 in the community of Box Grove in York Region. The Diversion Chamber is required to divert portions of the incoming sewer flows from the existing SEC Trunk Sewer to the proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer. The Diversion Chamber will be designed to split the sewer flows between the two Trunk Sewers based on the operation and maintenance requirements of the Regions.

The Corrosion Control Facility (CCF) (Shaft 13) will be located at the same site as the Diversion Chamber. Chemicals, including ferrous chloride, a chlorine solution, or hydrogen peroxide, will be added to the sewage flow to control corrosion within the Trunk Sewer, and associated components at this location. The chemicals proposed will also reduce the generation of odours downstream of the CCF.

The Meter Facility (Shafts 6 and 7) will be located on the west side of Altona Road immediately south of the Hydro Corridor in the City of Pickering. The Meter Facility is required to measure the sewage flows originating from York Region to allow for accurate cost sharing between the Regions. Sewage flows are also measured at the Duffin Creek WPCP (where the Trunk Sewer ends) and the difference between the sewage flow measure at the proposed Meter Facility and the Duffin Creek WPCP represents the flows from Durham Region.

The Odour Control Facility (OCF) will be located on the York-Durham Line right-of-way owned by York Region, opposite Shaft 9. The purpose of the OCF is to mitigate potential odours from the trunk sewer that arise when wastewater within the Trunk Sewer has turned septic. Wastewater can turn septic when it is deprived of oxygen. The proposed SEC Trunk Sewer is being designed to reduce odours through ensuring a long, constant, sewer profile with minimal drop structures, the inclusion of a CCF, passive venting, ventilated baffle drop structures, and the construction of an OCF that will collect and treat odourous air before being released into the atmosphere.

To draw the odourous air that is anticipated downstream of the proposed OCF (due to drops in elevation), fans and air piping will need to be installed at Shaft 6 and Shaft 4. Air must be moved upstream in order to treat and release the air in York Region per Durham Region’s March 11, 2009 council resolution to move the OCF to York Region.

The proposed OCF consists of a piped collection system that will draw air from the new SEC Trunk Sewer to Shaft 9. The collected air will be filtered through bioscrubbers, a multi-celled biofilter bed, and through activated carbon prior to being released into the atmosphere through a stack. The control system and fans will be enclosed in a building to ensure noise impacts are mitigated.

The Interconnection Chamber (Shaft 4) will be located on the east side of Fairport Road on the Hydro Corridor, north of Finch Avenue in Durham Region. The Interconnection Chamber will connect the existing SEC Trunk Sewer with the new SEC Trunk Sewer. The Interconnection Chamber will allow flow diversion between the two Trunk Sewers to allow for improved opportunities for maintenance downstream. The Interconnection Chamber sewer pipes will be installed by “open-cut” construction as opposed to Tunnel Boring Machine construction. Tunnel construction from Shaft 6 is expected to end at a shallow extraction shaft which will serve as one part of the Interconnection Chamber. Another shaft will be a deep drop shaft that will be used for tunnel construction going east towards Shaft 2. Air fans will also be installed and contained in a building at Shaft 4 in order to draw air upstream toward the OCF.

A total of three Maintenance Chambers will be installed after the new SEC Trunk Sewer tunnel is constructed for ongoing maintenance and operations access. Vertical shafts will be constructed using secant piles or a steel liner casing. Once the secant piles or steel liner is constructed, excavation of the soil inside will occur in order to allow for the installation of cast-in-place, reinforced concrete chambers. The width of theses chambers will be approximately 3 m. The walls will be designed for lateral earthe and groundwater pressures. The chambers will also be designed against uplift from potential groundwater effects.

The Central Duffin’s Collector (CDC) Sewer is an existing sewer that services lands north of Finch Avenue and connects to the existing SEC Trunk Sewer at Valley Farm Road and Finch Avenue. Based on the proposed route for the new SEC Trunk Sewer, the CDC sewer needs to be relocated in order to avoid the tunnel. The CDC sewer will eventually carry significant sewer flow and, as a result, will be connected to both the existing and new SEC Trunk Sewer. Connecting the CDC sewer to the existing and proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer will allow improved opportunity for future maintenance of the SEC Trunk Sewers. The construction of the CDC Chamber (Shaft 1) will be similar to that for the Maintenance Chambers.

A Connection Chamber (Shaft 1) is proposed at Valley Farm Road and Finch Avenue and is required to allow both the existing SEC Trunk Sewer and the proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer to connect to the existing Trunk Sewer south of Finch Avenue. The Connection Chamber will be a single cell chamber used to merge the flow from the proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer with the existing SEC Trunk Sewer. The construction of the Connection Chamber will be similar to that for the Maintenance and CDC Chambers.

As part of the proposed undertaking, specific haul routes have been identified for hauling construction material to and from the Construction Compounds. The Regions have indicated that construction related truck traffic will be restricted to the designated haul routes in order to minimize disruption to residents, businesses, and community facilities. It is the Regions’ intention to upgrade haul roads that do not meet the structural road base requirements prior to construction.

If EAA approval is granted, the proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer must be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the EA; any proposed conditions of approval; and will include the details outlined above. In addition, the Regions must obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the proposed undertaking.

Figure 1: Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer environmental assessment

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

Results of the ministry review

The Review provides the MOE’s analysis of the SEC Trunk Sewer 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 outline the EA planning process and demonstrate how the Regions have selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Compliance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry analysis

The MOE coordinated an analysis of the November 2008 SEC Trunk Sewer EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the requirements of the approved ToR have been met.

Based on a number of issues that were raised by the GRT and members of the public, the Regions requested additional time in order to amend the November 2008 SEC Trunk Sewer EA to ensure that it met the requirements of the approved ToR and the EAA. The August 2009 amended EA now follows the framework set out in the approved ToR and meets the requirements of the EAA and the conditions listed in the Minister’s Part II Order.

The November 2008 EA submission did not meet the commitment listed on page 15 of the approved ToR that states “The assessment of environmental effects will increase in detail as the study progresses to identify the preferred alternative and take into consideration other projects within and outside of the study area that may potentially interact with the effects of this project theus addressing cumulative effects.”

The August 2009 amended EA includes a discussion on how cumulative effects were assessed. An analysis was included in an appendix to the amended EA that also detailed the context for which the cumulative effects assessment was committed to in the approved ToR.

The November 2008 EA submission was also missing information that is required under the EAA that includes a list of studies and reports that were completed as part of the SEC Trunk Sewer EA. This information has now been provided to the MOE as part of the August 2009 amended EA submission in response to concerns raised about the EA.

The August 2009 amended EA also included information about the new proposed location of the OCF.

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

3.1.2 Consultation

One of the key requirements of the EAA is the need to consult with interested persons during the preparation of the EA. This consultation is the responsibility of the Regions and must be done prior to the submission of the EA and in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the approved ToR.

The Regions’ consultation plan, as outlined in the approved ToR, included creating the southeast Collector Advisory Committee (SeCAC) to obtain input at key project milestones, holding public information forums, conducting outreach activities, creating newsletters and flyers, hosting technical workshops, developing and maintaining a project web site and telephone hotline. In accordance with the approved ToR, the Regions also undertook a pre-submission review of the draft SEC Trunk Sewer EA, to obtain comments prior to finalizing the report for submission to the MOE.

A summary of the activities undertaken by the Regions to engage the general public, the GRT, local municipalities and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA can be found in Chapter 8 of the amended EA. Further detailed information can also be found in the Consultation Summary Addendum, February 2009, and in Supporting Document number 4: Summary of Consultation Activities, November 2008.

Once the November 2008 SEC Trunk Sewer EA was submitted to the MOE, additional MOE led consultation occurred during the seven week EA comment period. The GRT, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities were provided with the opportunity to review the EA and to submit comments to the MOE on whether the requirements of the approved ToR were met, on the EA itself and on the proposed undertaking. All comments received by the MOE during the EA comment period were forwarded to the Regions for a response. Summaries of all comments received along with the Regions’ responses are included in Tables 1-2 of the Review. Copies of submissions received from the GRT, and samples of the types of comments received from the public are included in Appendix B of the Review.

The Regions then asked for additional time to address the concerns raised during the EA comment period. Additional consultation took place with the public and some members of the GRT during this time in order to address the concerns raised prior to submission of the amended EA on August 21, 2009.

The August 2009 amended EA adequately documents the consultation methods utilized by the Regions to engage the public, government agencies, local municipalities and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the initial EA submission and the subsequent consultation that was undertaken prior to submission of the amended EA. Consultation with appropriate First Nation communities has been ongoing since submission of the November 2008 SEC Trunk Sewer EA. Further detailed information can also be found in Supporting Document number 4: Post-EA Submission Consultation Summary Report—January 24, 2009 to August 14, 2009 of the amended EA.

Government Review Team
Consultation undertaken during preparation of the EA

Consultation with the GRT was conducted throughout the EA process. The GRT was actively involved in identifying concerns, developing and assessing alternatives, and developing mitigation measures. The Regions convened meetings at key project milestones to update the GRT and to listen and respond to any concerns. In addition, a process for ongoing dialogue was maintained throughout the EA process. A summary of the concerns raised and the Regions’ responses can be found in Chapter 8 of the amended EA.

The GRT and municipalities were also given an opportunity to review the draft EA by the Regions in accordance with the approved ToR prior to submission of the November 2008 SEC Trunk Sewer EA to the MOE. The Regions indicated in the November 2008 EA submission that comments received about the draft EA were considered and incorporated into the November 2008 EA as necessary. Comments about the draft EA and the Regions’ responses can be found in Chapter 8 of the amended EA, in Supporting Document Number 4: Post-EA Submission Consultation Summary Report – January 24, 2009 to August 14, 2009 of the amended EA, in the Consultation Summary Addendum, February 2009, and in Supporting Document Number 4: Summary of Consultation Activities, November 2008.

Review of the November 2008 EA and August 2009 Amended EA

A copy of the November 28, 2008 EA was circulated to members of the GRT for a seven week review and comment period that ended January 23, 2009. although some members of the GRT indicated that they had no concerns with the EA, other GRT members indicated that they had some concerns about the final EA.

As a result of the comments received and the March 11, 2009 Durham Region council resolution to move the OCF to York Region, the Regions asked for an extension to the legislated deadline by which the MOE was required to complete this Review. An extension was granted by the Director, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, until October 2, 2009 in order to allow the Regions more time to resolve as many issues as possible prior to publication of this Review.

Initially, staff from the MOE had concerns about how the EA process was documented in the November 2008 EA as the organization of the information was confusing and documentation of the planning process followed was not always clear or logical. As a result, the Regions were required to provide additional information in order to provide clarity and make the decision-making process easier to understand. The Regions provided this information in the August 2009 amended EA and Appendices. The MOE had some questions about the August 2009 amended EA that have been discussed with the Regions. In some cases, clarification was provided in writing, and in others, a simple verbal clarification was provided. Questions raised included:

  • Why were mitigation measures removed in the amended EA when no questions or concerns had previously been raised about them? The Regions indicated that as a result of advancing the detail design of the proposed SEC Trunk Sewer, it was determined that some mitigation measures were not feasible and/or required
  • Concerns that meeting minutes with the City of Pickering about the amended location for the OCF included details about construction of the haul roads prior to EAA approval which is not permitted under section 12.2 of the EAA. The Regions have since indicated that they will not construct or upgrade the proposed haul roads prior to EAA approval.

The MOE is satisfied with the responses received and have no outstanding concerns with the August 2009 amended EA documentation.

The TRCA provided comments on the November 2008 EA requesting additional information on Figures (for example, legal boundaries of properties), additional detail on potential wetland monitoring and mitigation strategies around the proposed Maintenance Chamber at White’s Road in Pickering and confirmation that no new archaeological sites had been discovered in the Study Area. The TRCA provided information about the Redside Dace in Petticoat Creek from 1954 that the Regions had not included in their November 2008 EA documentation. The Regions provided a response to the TRCA and the TRCA has indicated that it is satisfied with the response provided.

The TRCA was also consulted by the Regions during the additional time requested by the Regions due to the new proposed location of the OCF. The Regions met with the TRCA in July 2009 and presented the proposed new location for the OCF to TRCA staff. During the meeting, TRCA did not raise any objections to the proposed new location for the OCF and no written objections have been received by either the Regions or the MOE.

The Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) provided comments on the November 2008 EA to the Regions indicating that based on the information provided in the November 2008 EA, a Class EA will be required for any lands impacted by the proposed undertaking that are owned or managed by the ORC. The Regions provided a response to the ORC and met with staff from the ORC during the additional time requested by the Regions indicating how the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Class EA requirements had been met in the November 2008 EA. Results of the ongoing discussions were not finalized at the time of this Review’s completion. As such, this issue is considered outstanding.

The Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI), Ontario growth Secretariat, provided comments about the November 2008 EA indicating that the population and employment numbers for York Region over the next 25 years as quoted in the EA are not consistent with the numbers in the growth Plan and requested that the EA be revised to reflect Schedule 3 of the growth Plan. As such, MEI requested that the November 2008 EA be revised to show the population growth numbers. The Regions have indicated that the population and employment numbers used for forecasting were based on the growth Plan. The MEI has indicated that York Region, as with all municipalities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, must use the population and employment forecasts in Schedule 3 of the growth Plan for planning and managing growth. Discussions are ongoing in order to resolve this issue and the MOE is confident that this issue will be addressed.

The Ministry of Culture (MCL) provided comments about the November 2008 EA indicating that the MCL was generally satisfied with the level of assessment for both built heritage features and archaeological resources at this point in the process. The MCL also indicated that the archaeological reports submitted had not yet been reviewed, but once the review was complete an acceptance or rejection letter would be provided to the licensed archaeologist who completed the assessments. The MCL also indicated that the short term vibration assessment was appropriate and that the MCL concurred with the proposed mitigation measures. The MCL also requested that any vibration assessment reports be forwarded to the MCL for their records. The Regions have agreed to this request. There are no outstanding concerns raised by the MCL.

The City of Pickering provided comments on the November 2008 EA including:

  • EA is too focused on the new SEC Trunk Sewer and not enough information was provided on the I/I Reduction Measures
  • EA does not indicate which haul roads will require upgrading and the extent of those upgrades. Haul roads have not been approved by the City of Pickering
  • Temporary traffic lanes at Liverpool Road require a temporary easement
  • Request to re-evaluate the location of the proposed OCF as only sites within the City of Pickering were evaluated

The Regions provided responses to the concerns raised by the City of Pickering. The City of Pickering has indicated that it is satisfied with the Regions’ response to the requirement for a temporary easement for additional traffic lanes. The Regions re-evaluated the location of the proposed OCF and identified the new proposed location as being in York Region. The City of Pickering has indicated that the Regions’ responses to all other concerns are not adequate.

The MOE is satisfied that the Region’s have addressed the concerns raised by the City of Pickering about the November 2008 EA.

On September 22, 2009 at the City of Pickering Council meeting, a motion was passed requesting that the Minister of the Environment not issue any decision on the August 2009 amended EA until an acceptable location for the OCF in York Region has been found. The City of Pickering also requested that the Minister expand the study boundary to include additional lands in Pickering to further assess health and social impacts to residents. The City of Pickering indicated in the motion that if these requests are not granted, legal action against the MOE will be taken in the form of a request for Judicial Review.

It is the MOE’s understanding that this motion along with another motion directed at York Region will be brought forward at the October 14, 2009 Durham Region Council meeting for endorsement. At the time of this Review’s completion, the concerns raised by the City of Pickering remain outstanding.

The City of Toronto submitted comments from two city departments: the traffic department and the Legal Services office on the November 2008 EA. The traffic department indicated that the EA was incorrect in its assumption that the City of Pickering owned Townline Road. The City of Toronto maintains that it is the legal owner of Townline Road south of Steeles Avenue. The Regions responded to the City of Toronto and indicated that should the City of Toronto provide proof that it legally owns the portion of Townline Road south of Steeles Avenue, then the Regions would obtain any approvals required. The City of Toronto responded and provided information from the City of Toronto’s Land Surveyor indicating that the City of Toronto has jurisdiction over Townline Road south of Steeles Avenue.

The City of Toronto’s Legal Services office provided a number of comments about the November 2008 EA including:

  • Inadequacy of the EA to assess cumulative impacts of the entire YDSS proposal
  • Intrabasin transfer of groundwater from the Lake Simcoe Basin to the Lake Ontario Basin does not meet MOE policy or provisions in the Great Lakes Charter
  • Assessment of alternatives is inadequate
  • Current I/I is not acceptable
  • Proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer will encourage more inefficient development
  • Concerns about impacts to Lake Ontario water quality

The Regions provided responses to the comments raised by the City of Toronto’s Legal Services office. The City of Toronto responded to those comments indicating that the Regions’ responses were not satisfactory. The City of Toronto’s Legal Services office feels that its concerns have not been addressed; however, the MOE is satisfied that the Regions have addressed the concerns raised by the City of Toronto.

The Town of Markham indicated that it was supportive of the proposed undertaking outlined in the November 2008 EA subject to a number of conditions. These conditions mostly related to the construction stage of the proposed undertaking. The Regions’ provided a response to the Town of Markham indicating that they would comply with the Town’s proposed conditions. As a result, there are no outstanding concerns.

Further detailed information on the consultation activities can be found in Chapter 8 of the amended EA, in Supporting Document No. 4: Post-EA Submission Consultation Summary Report—January 24, 2009 to August 14, 2009 of the amended EA, in the Consultation Summary Addendum, February 2009, and in Supporting Document number 4: Summary of Consultation Activities, November 2008.

For additional details on the concerns raised, and the Region’s responses, about the EA, please see the section on “Key Issues” as well as Table 1 – GRT Comment Table.

southeast Collector Advisory Committee

During the preparation of the ToR and as part of the Regions’ commitment to the Minister to increase openness, transparency, and public access to involvement in the preparation of the EA, the Regions established the SeCAC comprised of government agency, municipal, and public representatives who had expressed an interest in meeting at key milestones during the preparation of the EA. These meetings provided the SeCAC with an opportunity to receive project updates from the Regions and its technical experts and to provide input and discuss concerns.

At the final meeting of the SeCAC, prior to the Regions’ submission of the November 2008 EA, the SeCAC requested that a liaison committee of interested stakeholders be formed if the EA is approved to provide input on the development of consultation activities and communication to the public about the progress of the project, to bring forward issues raised about construction activity by the community, and to act as liaison between the Project Design Team and the community. The Regions have committed to the creation of the southeast Collector Liaison Committee if EA approval is received.

Public consultation
Consultation undertaken during preparation of the EA

The Regions engaged in a consultation program with the public about the EA process and the proposed undertaking. The details of this consultation process can be found in Chapter 8 of the amended EA and in Supporting Document number 4 of the amended EA and in the Consultation Summary Addendum, February 2009 and Supporting Document number 4: Summary of Consultation Activities, November 2008.

Consultation with interested members of the public was a key component of the Regions’ planning process and is required by the EAA. The public, which includes the general public, interest groups and property owners, were provided with opportunities to contribute to the preparation of the EA through providing comments at various stages during preparation of the EA. Public involvement in the EA 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 EA. Interested members of the public were added to the list throughout the EA process. The mailing lists provided an on-going means for the Regions to update the public on the EA process and to request comments. Other consultation tools used by the Regions included newspaper ads, technical workshops, synopsis reports, discussion papers, newsletters, resident outreach surveys, a project website and hotline, and public information forums (PIFs).

A draft EA was made available by the Regions for public review on the project website. The Regions provided responses to those who provided comments on the draft EA and incorporated suggestions as necessary into the November 2008 EA before it was submitted to the MOE for review and a decision.

In addition, the Regions mailed out notices to approximately 100,000 homes in the study area as well as to individuals on the project mailing list and land owners and tenants in proximity of the preferred sewer route notifying that the draft EA was available for review and comment.

As a result of concerns raised about the proposed location of the OCF during the review of the draft EA, the Regions held a neighbourhood information session for the residents of the Cherrywood and Cherrywood West communities on November 5, 2008. Some of the public concerns raised related to the potential for negative impacts from odour, toxins and noise and the subsequent negative impact on property values. The communities also raised the concern that insufficient consultation had been undertaken by the Regions.

Review of the November 2008 EA and August 2009 amended EA

To announce the submission of the November 2008 EA and the availability of the document for review, the Regions posted a Notice of Submission in three newspapers in the study area. Over 250 comments along with a petition with over 5,000 signatures were received by the MOE during the initial seven-week comment period. A summary of the submissions received and the Regions’ responses are summarized in Table 2 of this Review.

Members of the public were not satisfied with the responses they received from the Regions to their concerns regarding the location of, and potential impacts from, the OCF. As a result, both the City of Pickering and Durham Region passed council resolutions indicating that the OCF should be located in York Region. As mentioned, the Regions requested additional time to look for a suitable location in York Region.

During this additional time the Regions met with residents, posted updates on the project web site and held a PIF on May 13, 2009. Notification of the PIF was advertised in three newspapers on nine separate dates.

In response to Durham Region’s March 11, 2009 council resolution to relocate the OCF and to public input received at the PIF on May 13, 2009, a location in York Region was identified and presented to the public at a PIF on July 23, 2009. Notification of the upcoming PIF was advertised in three papers on seven different dates and notices were sent to all homes in the entire study area and individuals on the project contact list.

The new proposed location for the OCF is located in York Region and as indicated in a letter to the MOE from the Chair and CEO of York Region and the Chair of Durham Region, this location is acceptable to both Regions.

Members of the public continue to raise concerns about the consultation that was undertaken by the Regions and are opposed to the proposed new location of the OCF. Letters of concern are still being received by the MOE from the public that adequate public consultation has not been undertaken.

In reviewing the documentation provided by the Regions, the MOE is satisfied that the consultation program undertaken with interested members of the public during the development of the EA and the additional consultation regarding the location of the proposed OCF meets the requirements of the approved ToR and the EAA.

Aboriginal community consultation

In addition to the EAA requirements that interested persons be consulted, the Crown and proponents must turn their minds to consultation with Aboriginal communities who may have aboriginal or treaty rights that could be affected by the proposed undertaking. This is because it is well established in law that the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal communities where it is contemplating action that may adversely affect established or asserted aboriginal or treaty rights.

Consultation undertaken during preparation of the EA

The Regions received notification from Indian and northrn Affairs Canada that the proposed undertaking is within the area delineated by the Gunshot Treaty specific claim and as such involved the Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island. In addition to undertaking consultation with these identified First Nation communities, the Regions consulted with many other potentially interested First Nation and Métis communities. The First Nation communities included: Beausoleil First Nation; Chippewas of Georgina Island; Chippewas of Mjikaning; Conseil de la Nation Huronne-Wendat; Haudenosaunee Iroquois Confederacy; Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation; Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte; Moose Deer Point First Nation; and Six Nations of the Grand River Territory.

The Regions notified the above listed First Nation communities directly by letter during development of the EA about the status of the EA and also inviting interested First Nations to the PIFs. During meetings with the First Nations and through correspondence received during development of the EA, some First Nations raised concerns about funding for participation in the EA process and for cultural identification of any archaeological findings. In response, the Regions reimbursed any First Nation community for expenses to attend meetings with the Regions.

The Regions and the First Nation communities also entered into a Protocol for First Nations Consultation (Protocol) setting out general principles and a process under which they would work together to identify potential effects of the proposed undertaking and measures to mitigate those effects. The Protocol also served to clarify roles and responsibilities with respect to the protection of burials, and artefacts/funerary objects which may be discovered by archaeological studies. A copy of the Protocol was included in the November 2008 EA document and can be found in Supporting Document number 4 dated November 2008.

Métis communities were also included in the Regions’ consultation plan. The Regions initiated contact with the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) and the Métis National Council (MNC) early in the planning process. The MNC advised the Regions that future consultation on the proposed undertaking would be handled by a representative of the MNO. The MNO subsequently advised the Regions in May 2007 that it would not be providing any comments as it had no concerns with the proposed undertaking and did not need to receive further documentation on the proposed undertaking.

The Regions scheduled a group meeting for November 2007 inviting all potentially interested First Nation communities identified. The objective of the meeting was to provide a draft of the Protocol for review and comment and an overview of key project developments including presenting the Cultural and Archaeological Assessment results. The Chippewas of Mjikaning First Nation; Hiawatha First Nation; Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation and Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte were the only First Nation communities that attended. The meeting notes and the revised Protocol were sent via facsimile for review and comment to all First Nation communities that had been invited to the November 2007 meeting.

Subsequent to the November 2007 group meeting, the Regions were requested to meet separately with the Conseil de la Nation Huronne-Wendat and with the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation. The Regions met with the Conseil de la Nation Huronne-Wendat in December 2007 and March 2008 and met with the Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation in February 2008.

In May 2008, the Regions held another group meeting to present updates on the preparation of the EA and the revised Protocol for review and comment inviting all previously identified potentially interested First Nation communities. The First Nation communities that attended the meeting were Alderville First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mjikaning, Conseil de la Nation Huronne-Wendat, Hiawatha First Nation, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation and Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. It was agreed that a draft EA Report pre-submission meeting would be scheduled for July 2008. Notification and a copy of the draft EA was distributed prior to the pre-submission meeting in July 2008.

The First Nation communities that attended the July 23, 2008 meeting to review and discuss the draft EA were the Alderville First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island, Chippewas of Mjikaning, Hiawatha First Nation and Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. At the close of this meeting the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation requested a follow up meeting with the Regions to discuss the Toronto Carrying Place Trail East enhancement. This meeting was held on September 5, 2008 with the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation agreeing to be involved in further field and archival investigations for the Toronto Carrying Place Trail enhancement project.

Review of the November 2008 EA and August 2009 Amended EA

The Aboriginal communities’ consultation process undertaken by the Regions is summarized in the August 2009 amended EA with more detail provided in Supporting Document number 4 of the August 2009 amended EA as well as in Supporting Document number 4 dated November 2008.

Once the November 2008 EA was submitted, the Regions provided the First Nation communities with a copy of the EA and a request for comments. No comments were submitted by any of the First Nation communities during the comment period.

During the additional time required by the Regions, the Regions sent an information briefing package that included updates on project activities including the proposed order mitigation strategy. Also included in this package was a copy of the notice for the PIF to be held on July 23, 2009 which noted that following the submission of the August 2009 amended EA to the MOE and the publishing of the Ministry Review, there would be an opportunity for First Nation communities to provide comments to the MOE.

3.1.3 Conclusion

The MOE believes that the Regions provided opportunities for the GRT, public, other interested stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to be consulted during the preparation of the November 2008 EA and, subsequently, the August 2009 amended EA.

Based on comments received during the preparation of the EA, it is clear that the Regions could have provided more comprehensive information in the November 2008 EA about the OCF, such as a more detailed description of how the OCF technology works, the rationale for proposing the chosen technology and the reasons for the initial proposed location for the OCF. Additional consultation by the Regions was undertaken in response to the concerns raised during the first comment period. The results of the additional consultation by the Regions resulted in the relocation of the proposed OCF from a site in Durham Region to a site in York Region.

Should the undertaking be approved, the Regions have committed to ongoing consultation with the GRT, First Nation communities, and the public during design, construction and operation of the new SEC Trunk Sewer and related facilities through the following consultation activities:

  • Creation of the southeast Collector Liaison Committee
  • Outreach programs for local residents
  • Enhancement Implementation Team
  • Neighbourhood Sessions / Community and Individual Stakeholder Meetings
  • Project Newsletters / Notices
  • Project web site

The MOE is satisfied that the Regions met the requirements for consultation as detailed in the approved ToR. The MOE is also satisfied that the requirements for consultation as required in the EAA have been met.

3.2 Key issues

The Regions followed the EA decision-making process as outlined in the approved ToR for the SEC Trunk Sewer EA. A description of how the alternatives to and alternative methods were assessed was provided in Section 2.

A number of concerns were raised by the GRT and members of the public during the initial pre-submission consultation and during seven week comment review period about the November 2008 EA. These submissions can be found in Appendix B. A summary of all comments, including the Regions’ responses and MOE’s level of satisfaction can be found in Table 1 and Table 2 of this Review. Key issues that were raised are found below.

The City of Pickering raised concerns about I/I reduction measure, the location of haul roads, and the location of the OCF. The City of Pickering’s key outstanding issues have been summarized in Section 3.1.2 of this Review. although the City of Pickering is not satisfied with the response the Regions have provided, the MOE is satisfied that the concerns raised by the City of Pickering on the November 2008 EA have been addressed.

Over 5,000 Pickering residents signed a petition, and over 250 comments were received by the MOE during the initial public comment period indicating opposition to the proposed location of the OCF. Issues raised about the OCF by the public include:

  • Reliability of the proposed technology
  • Inappropriateness of locating the facility in Durham Region
  • Potential reduction in property values
  • Odour and noise that will be emitted from this facility will impact the community of Cherrywood West, located 300 m from the proposed facility, and surrounding residential areas west of Finch Avenue
  • Lack of information that was provided to the residents about this project
  • The proposed site is located on the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve

Other issues raised by the public about the proposed undertaking include:

  • Potential effects on wells serving agricultural operations (for example, Whittamore’s Berry Farm) and how they will be mitigated
  • Region does not recognize residual interference impacts from the 9th Line and the 16th Avenue YDSS projects inherent in the stream and groundwater monitoring for SEC Trunk Sewer
  • Opposition to the preferred sewer route through the Bob Hunter Memorial Park

The Regions provided an initial response to the concerns raised by the residents prior to Durham Region’s March 11, 2009 resolution. As a result of the resolution, the location for the OCF is now proposed to be located in York Region, theus satisfying Durham Region’s request to move the OCF from Durham Region to York Region. The Regions have also provided responses to the concerns listed above, and a summary of those responses can be found in Table 2 of this Review. The City of Pickering and some City of Pickering residents are still not satisfied with the proposed location of the OCF and once again passed City of Pickering motions at a September 21, 2009 City of Pickering Council meeting. From the City of Pickering’s perspective, at the time of this Review’s completion, their concerns are still outstanding. From the MOE’s perspective, the MOE is satisfied that issues related to the proposed location of the OCF have been addressed by the Regions.

MOE staff identified a number of key issues on the draft EA with respect to the planning and decision-making process that was followed. In addition, MOE staff found that the organization of the information was confusing which led to the process not being described clearly in a logical and traceable manner. A number of the issues raised at the draft EA stage were not addressed by the Regions and they carried through into the November 2008 EA.

The EA Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario states that the EA needs to contain sufficient information to ensure that both the expert and the lay reader can understand the planning process that was followed. The main document should be sufficiently detailed so that it can stand on its own and provide a complete picture of the planning process and its conclusions. The main EA document did not meet this requirement and referred the reader to technical documents and working papers in order to understand the planning process that was followed.

In response to the concerns raised, the Regions revised the November 2008 EA and submitted an amended EA to the MOE on August 21, 2009. The August 2009 amended EA provides the reader with a better understanding of the planning process that was followed and provides a more complete picture about how decisions were made.

The City of Toronto’s legal department also had concerns with the EA process that was followed. The City of Toronto’s concerns have been detailed in section 3.1.2 of this Review.

although the City of Toronto is not satisfied with the response the Regions have provided, the MOE is satisfied that the concerns raised by the City of Toronto have been addressed.

3.2.1 Conclusion

The decision-making process was not always logical, transparent or clear in the November 2008 EA that was submitted to the MOE. The August 2009 amended EA and Appendices submitted in response to concerns raised about the initial EA provides a better understanding of the planning and decision-making process that was followed. The MOE is satisfied that the Regions’ decision-making process meets the requirements as set out in the EAA, and the approved ToR.

The MOE is also satisfied that the Regions responses have addressed most of the concerns raised by the public and municipalities although some concerns remain outstanding at this time.

The MOE is satisfied that potential effects to the environment of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the amended EA, or through additional work that must be carried out by the Regions.

During the period between the publication of this Review and before the Minister makes a decision about the proposed undertaking, further discussion between the Regions, the MOE and applicable reviewers will be necessary to respond to the outstanding issues and provide the requisite information the Minister needs to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.

Summary of the ministry review

The Review has explained the MOE’s analysis for the SEC Trunk Sewer EA.

This Review concludes:

  • The MOE is satisfied that the Regions’ planning and decision-making process meets the requirements as set out in the EAA and the approved ToR
  • The MOE is satisfied that the responses provided by the Regions address the concerns raised
  • The MOE is satisfied that potential effects to the environment of the proposed undertaking can be managed
  • The consultation undertaken meets the requirements as set out in the EAA and the approved ToR

The amended EA and Appendices address many of the concerns raised about the EA during the initial comment period, the key issue being the new proposed location for the OCF in York Region. There are some issues that remain outstanding that need to be addressed prior to a decision being made. Some discrepancies and errors remain with respect to changes and updates of information from the November 2008 EA to the August 2009 EA, however, they are administrative in nature and do not affect the conclusions reached in the EA or the conclusions of this Review.

What happens now

The Review will be made available for a five-week comment period. During this time, all interested persons, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit comments to the MOE about the proposed undertaking, the EA and/or the Review. At this time, anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of the EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed. At this time, interested persons may also request that the Minister refer all or part of the EA to mediation.

At the end of the Review comment period, MOE staff will make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved 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 approved ToR, the EA, the Review, the comments submitted during the EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.

The Minister will make one of the following decisions:

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

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

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

5.1 Additional approvals required

If EAA approval is granted, the Regions will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Chapter 9 of the amended EA outlines additional approvals that may be required. These approvals may include but are not limited to:

Municipal Approvals (Town of Markham, City of Pickering, City of Toronto, Utility authorities):
  • Tree removal Permits
  • Exemptions for Construction Noise
  • Building Permits
  • Property Agreements (Easements, encroachment agreements)
  • Road Occupancy Permits
  • Haul Road Approvals
  • Open Cut Permits
  • Discharge to Sewer Permits
  • Fill and Topsoil Removal Approval
  • Potential Relocation Utilities (phone, gas, cable, etc.)

Provincial approvals

Ministry of the Environment
  • Permits To Take Water (Ontario Water Resources Act)
  • Certificate of Approval—Municipal Sewage Works (Ontario Water Resources Act)
  • Certificate of Approval—Air (Environmental Protection Act)
  • Certificate of Approval—Noise (Environmental Protection Act)
Ministry of Culture
  • Letter of Concurrence re: Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments
Ontario Realty Corporation
  • Permanent and temporary easements
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Conservation authorities Act)
  • Approvals may be required for crossings under creeks and streams
  • Permits to autheorize temporary site construction activities
  • Approvals for temporary land requirements
Hydro One Networks Inc.
  • Consent is required for the new SEC Trunk Sewer alignment prior to negotiating required easements and agreements with ORC

5.2 Modifying or amending the proposed undertaking

Chapter 10 of the amended EA describes the Regions’ 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.

The Regions have proposed that any required change first be reviewed by the Regions and grouped into one of three categories:

  • No amendment required
  • Minor amendment required
  • Major amendment required

The Regions have proposed applying the following questions to the proposed change as part of the review to determine how is should be dealt with within the context of the amendment procedure.

  • Is there a change to what was proposed to be built?
  • Is there a change to where sometheing was to be built?
  • Is there a change to how sometheing was to be built?
  • Is there a change to when sometheing was to be built?

If the response is “Yes” to any of the above, the Regions have proposed to determine the potential effect of that change on the environment. If the Regions determine 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, how, and/or when it would be built. The Regions have proposed that minor amendments would be addressed without requesting formal approval from the Minister, but will be subject to any applicable legislation as required prior to construction.

Major amendments would alter the proposed undertaking significantly in terms of what, where, how, and/or when it would be built. The Regions have proposed that major amendments would be addressed through the completion of a new EA either through the individual EA process or through the Municipal Engineers Association’s Municipal Class EA.

The amended 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 MOE’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB) and concurrence from the Director, EAAB, would be sought for any proposed amendment.

Public record locations

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

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

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

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

Regional Municipality of Durham
Office of the Regional Clerk
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3

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

Scarborough Civic Centre (Clerk’s Office)
150 Borough Drive, 3rd floor
Toronto, Ontario
M1P 4N7

Ministry of the Environment
York Durham District Office
230 Westney Road south, 5th floor
Ajax, Ontario
L1S 7J5

Town of Markham (Clerk’s Office)
Antheony Roman Centre
101 Town Centre Boulevard
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9W3

Unionville Public Library
15 Library Lane
Markham, Ontario
L3R 5C4

City of Pickering (Clerk’s Office)
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7

Malvern District Library
30 Sewells Road
Toronto, Ontario
M1B 3G5

Markham Village Library
6031 Highway 7
Markham, Ontario
L3P 3A7

York Region Administrative Centre
17250 Yonge Street, 4th floor
Newmarket, Ontario
L3Y 6Z1

Pickering Central Library
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference requirements of the environmental assessment

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

Appendix B: Submissions received during initial comment period

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