Ministry Review for the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment NEED MORE INFORMATION?
Public Record Locations The public record for this amended environmental assessment can be reviewed during normal business hours at the following ministry office:
Ministry of the Environment Environmental Approvals Branch 2 St.Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario 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 Ministry of the Environment Central Region Office Environmental Approvals Branch 5775 Yonge Street, 8th Floor 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A North York, ON M2M 4J1 Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 (416) 326-6700 (416) 314-8001
Regional Municipality of York Town of Markham Office of the Regional Clerk Office of the Town Clerk 17250 Yonge Street, 4th Floor 101 Town Centre Boulevard Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1 Markham, ON L3R 9W3 1-877-464-9675 ext. 1320 (905) 475-4744
Woodside Square Library City of Toronto Scarborough Civic Centre Woodside Square Mall Clerk’s Department 1571 Sandhurst Circle 150 Borough Drive Toronto, ON M1V 1V2 Toronto, ON M1P 4N7 416-396-8979 416-396-7288
Markham Village Library 6031 Highway 7 Markham, ON L3P 3A7 905-513-7977
This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was November 18, 2011. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act.
The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration. Cette publication hautement spécialisée n’est disponible qu’en anglais en vertu du règlement 441/97, qui en exempte l’application de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir de l’aide en français, veuillez communiquer avec le ministère de l’Environnement au 1-800-461-6290. Ministry Review for the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment
Review prepared pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990 Province of Ontario by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
PIBS 8594e © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011
For more information: call 416-325-4000 or toll free 1-800-565-4923 [email protected] www.Ontario.ca/Environment Table of Contents
Executive Summary...... 1 1. Environmental Assessment Process ...... 2 1.1 Terms of Reference...... 2 1.2 Environmental Assessment...... 2 1.3 Ministry Review...... 3 2. The Proposed Undertaking ...... 8 3. Results of the Ministry Review ...... 12 3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA...... 12 3.1.1 Ministry Analysis...... 12 3.1.2 Consultation...... 12 3.1.3 Conclusion ...... 17 3.2 EA Process...... 17 3.2.1 Key Issues...... 20 3.2.2 Conclusion ...... 23 3.3 Proposed Undertaking...... 23 3.3.1 Key Issues...... 25 3.3.2 Conclusion ...... 27 4. Summary of the Ministry Review...... 27 5. What Happens Now? ...... 27 5.1 Additional Approvals Required...... 30 5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking ...... 30
List of Appendices Appendix A Environmental Assessment Act Requirements Appendix B Submissions Received During the Initial Comment Period Appendix C Supplemental Information
List of Tables Table 1 Government Review Team Comment Summary Table Table 2 Public Comment Summary Table Table 3 Aboriginal Communities Comment Summary Table
Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
Executive Summary
WHO The Regional Municipality of York
WHAT Ministry Review of an Amended Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed undertaking which includes:
A four-lane urban arterial roadway extension of Morningside Avenue from McNicoll Avenue north to Steeles Avenue; a widening of Steeles Avenue to a six-lane urban roadway from east of Tapscott Road to east of Ninth Line; a widening of Ninth Line to a four-lane urban roadway from Steeles Avenue to the south limit of the Box Grove Development Area; and, new ramps at the Donald Cousens Parkway and Highway 407 Interchange to provide access onto Highway 407 from the south. The undertaking also includes a new crossing of the Neilson Tributary and replacement of the existing Steeles Avenue crossings of the Rouge River and Morningside Tributary. WHEN Amended EA Submitted: July 19, 2011.
Ministry Review comment period: December 2, 2011 to January 13, 2012 WHERE Southeast Markham and Northeast Toronto (Scarborough).
WHY To address the capacity deficiencies between southeast portion of the Town of Markham and northeast portion of the City of Toronto
CONCLUSIONS The proposed transportation improvements will benefit the communities the Town of Markham and the developed areas and the proposed to be developed areas of the north-eastern are of the City of Toronto.
The proposed mitigation methods and contingencies will ensure that any potential negative impacts will be minimized and managed.
Based on the government Review of the EA, the ministry has concluded that the EA has been carried out in accordance with section 6(2) (c) of the Environmental Assessment Act. However, the ministry has also concluded that there is an outstanding issue of jurisdiction and York’s ability to implement the undertaking as contemplated in the amended EA.
November 18, 2011 1 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
1. Environmental Assessment Process
Environmental Assessment (EA) is a proponent driven planning process designed to incorporate the consideration of the environment into decision making. This is done by assessing the effects of an undertaking on the environment. In Ontario, the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) sets out the general EA Process contents for the preparation of an EA, as well as the ministry’s ToR Approval evaluation process. For those proponents and undertakings subject the EAA, approval under the Act is required before ↓ the undertaking can proceed. EA Preparation ↓ Proponents address a wide range of potential effects on the EA Submission natural, social, cultural and economic environments to ensure ↓ the protection, conservation and wise management of the EA Comment Period 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. Ministry Review ↓ EAs may identify a problem or opportunity; consider Review Comment Period alternative ways of addressing a problem or opportunity; ↓ evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives; and, Minister’s Decision select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponent must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.
1.1 Terms of Reference
Preparing an EA is a two step application to the Minister of the Environment (Minister). The first step requires the proponent to prepare and submit a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the Ministry of the Environment (ministry) for review and approval. The ToR is the work plan or framework for how the EA will be prepared.
On July 13, 2004, the Minister approved the Markham Bypass Extension from Highway 407 to Morningside Avenue ToR. The ToR set out how the Regional Municipality of York (York) would evaluate environmental effects, assess alternatives and consult with the public during the preparation of the EA. The ToR established the rationale for addressing the capacity deficiencies between the southeast portion of the Town of Markham (Markham) and northeast portion of the City of Toronto (Toronto). The ToR also outlined a consultation plan for the EA process.
November 18, 2011 2 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
1.2 Original Environmental Assessment
Once the ToR is approved by the Minister, the proponent can proceed to the second step of the EA process and prepare an EA. The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR and the requirements of the EAA. Once the proponent has completed the EA, including consultation, the EA is submitted to the ministry for review and approval.
On December 23, 2005, York submitted the Transportation Improvements in the Markham Bypass Corridor South of Highway 407 EA (original EA) to the ministry for a decision. The original EA sought approval to construct a four-lane urban arterial roadway, extending from the existing terminus of the Markham Bypass (now referred to as the Donald Cousens Parkway) at Highway 407 southerly to the future Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue intersection in Toronto. The proposed roadway was intended to provide York and Toronto with the capacity to support the increasing transportation needs between the southeast Markham and the northeast of Toronto.
The original EA was made available for public inspection and comment for a seven week period which ended on February 17, 2006.
1.3 Ministry Review of the Original Environmental Assessment
The original EA was circulated for review to a Government Review Team (GRT). The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, reviewed the original EA to ensure that the information and conclusions of the original EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. Members of the public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the original EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the undertaking for which approval is being sought.
The EAA requires the ministry to prepare a review of an EA submitted for approval, known simply as the ministry Review (Review). The Review is the ministry’s evaluation of the EA. The purpose of the Review is to determine if the EA has been prepared in accordance with the approved ToR, the requirements of the EAA, and whether the evaluation in the EA is sufficient to allow the Minister to make a decision about the proposed undertaking.
The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. Ministry staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking; the anticipated environmental effects; and, the proposed mitigation measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.
The Minister considers the conclusion of the Review when making a decision. The Review itself is not the EA decision making mechanism. The Minister’s decision will be
November 18, 2011 3 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
made following the end of a five week comment period on the Review. The Minister’s decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The Review comment period allows the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities to see how their concerns with the EA and the proposed undertaking have been considered. During the Review comment period, anyone can submit comments on the EA, the undertaking and the Review. In addition, anyone can request that the Minister refer the EA, or any matter relating to the EA, to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a hearing if they believe that there are significant outstanding environmental impacts that the EA has not addressed. Requests for a hearing can only be made during this comment period. The Minister will consider all requests and determine if a hearing is necessary.
The Review of the original EA was made public on January 25, 2008 and concluded that York had provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the undertaking. The Review also explained the ministry’s analysis of the original EA.
The Review concluded that the original EA assessed and evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to arrive at the preferred undertaking; assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and proposed undertaking; and, provided sufficient mitigation and monitoring measures to ensure that the potential negative environmental effects of the undertaking will be minimized. The ministry was satisfied that the analysis of alternatives assessed the potential environmental effects for each of the alternatives to the undertaking; the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking; and, the proposed undertaking for which approval was being sought. The Review also concluded that the original EA provided a description of the mitigation and monitoring measures that would be applied to address and minimize the potential negative environmental effects of the undertaking. The ministry and GRT did not raise any issues of concern in regard to the proposed mitigation measures and proposed monitoring program.
The Review determined that York provided sufficient time and opportunities for the GRT, the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to comment on the preparation of the original EA. The ministry was satisfied that the original EA clearly documented the consultation methods utilized by York to engage these groups during the original EA process. The original EA clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they were addressed by York. York’s consultation methods were found to be in accordance with the requirements of the ToR.
The Review, however, also concluded that there was a jurisdictional issue of concern that remained unresolved. The Review identified that a portion of the proposed roadway for which York was seeking approval, west of 19th Avenue and south of Steeles Avenue, was located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Toronto. The Review explained that York had the authority to only construct the portion of the preferred undertaking located within its jurisdictional boundaries. It would be the decision of Toronto whether to construct the portion of the proposed undertaking within its boundaries. Although Toronto had acknowledged the need to address the increasing transportation demands in the area, it
November 18, 2011 4 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
opposed to the proposed direct linkage of the roadway recommended in the original EA. On February 14, 2006, Toronto submitted a letter to the ministry stating that it would not extend Morningside Avenue to Steeles Avenue along the recommended alignment.
In response to the conclusions of the Review, York acknowledged that it could not be the sole proponent for the construction of an undertaking outside its municipal boundaries, and that proceeding with the implementation of the preferred undertaking described in the original EA could only proceed with the approval of Toronto.
The Review concluded that because York can only construct the portion of the preferred undertaking located within its jurisdictional boundaries, due to the fact that Toronto declared that it would not extend Morningside Avenue to Steeles Avenue in accordance with recommended alignment of the roadway in the original EA, the Minister would have to decide whether it is prudent to approve an undertaking that may never be constructed.
In accordance with Ontario Regulation 616/98, the Minister was required to make a decision on the original EA by May 30, 2008.
1.4 Minister’s Order
On May 1, 2008 York provided information to the ministry indicating that a tentative resolution to the jurisdictional issue with Toronto had been reached. York had agreed in principle to seek approval for a road alignment supported by Toronto, but which differed from the preferred undertaking described in the original EA. The alignment agreed upon by York and Toronto was a discontinuous arterial road, an alternative ranked third out of nine in the original EA. York requested that the Minister consider approving the original EA conditionally on the submission of an addendum or a separate Class EA process for the portion of the alignment which differs from the alignment of the preferred undertaking identified in the original EA.
On June 10, 2008 the Minister denied the request to approve an alignment that was not identified as the preferred undertaking in the original EA. This was because the original EA did not contain the information required to allow the Minister to make an informed decision about approving an alignment other than the preferred alignment recommended in the original EA. In addition, consultation undertaken to date with the public, Aboriginal communities and the GRT was based on the preferred undertaking in the original EA and not a potentially different alignment. The Minister therefore concluded that the approval of an undertaking other than that described as the preferred undertaking in the original EA was not an appropriate course of action and would therefore not be consistent with the purpose of the EAA. The Minister also concluded that it was in the public interest to allow the outstanding jurisdictional issue to be formally resolved in a subsequent approval process.
November 18, 2011 5 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
Because of the progress that was made in resolving the dispute between York and Toronto, on June 13, 2008 the Minister advised York in writing that the ministry was willing to postpone a decision on the original EA. The postponement would allow York to continue the self-directed mediation with Toronto so that a formal resolution could be finalized. If a potential resolution to the jurisdictional issue was to result in any change to the preferred undertaking, as described in the original EA, York would be expected to prepare an amendment to the original EA that would include, but not be limited to, the following:
• A work plan setting out timelines for the completion of all work related to the proposed changes; • A comparative evaluation of each alternative in the EA; • Any additional supporting information or studies required to assess the potential environmental effects of a different Preferred Undertaking, if the Preferred Undertaking set out in the EA was to change; • A public, Aboriginal, and government consultation plan, and the results of any consultation; and • A public and Ministry notification protocol related to the proposed changes.
York was required to provide a response to the ministry by July 2, 2008, indicating how York wished to proceed. If a response was not received by this date, the Minister would make a decision on the original EA. On June 25, 2008 York responded and accepted the ministry’s approach. Accordingly, on July 15, 2008 the decision on the original EA was postponed.
On January 23, 2009 York notified the ministry that it intended to move forward with an amendment to the original EA. In support of the request for an amendment, York provided the ministry with a work plan, entitled “Regional Municipality of York Transportation Improvements in the Donald Cousens Parkway/Morningside Link Corridor South of Highway 407 Amendment to the EA Work Plan (work plan), January 2009” (Appendix C). The work plan outlined how York intended to re-examine the alternative alignments studied in the original EA. Ministry staff reviewed the work plan and were satisfied that it met the Minister’s requirements, as set forth in his June 13, 2008 letter to York, and that the work plan complied with the provisions of the EAA and the ToR.
Section 6.2 of the EAA establishes the conditions for submitting, amending and withdrawing an EA. The provision allows a proponent to amend or withdraw the EA after the deadline for completion of the Review of the EA only upon such conditions as the Minister may by order impose. The authority for issuing such an order is found in section 6.2(3) of the EAA.
On July 2, 2009 the Minister issued Order MO-2009-001 to York. The Minster’s Order granted York permission to re-examine the alternative alignments studied in the original
November 18, 2011 6 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
EA in consideration of the outstanding jurisdictional issue and the transportation needs of Toronto by way of an amendment, subject to conditions including the following:
● York shall prepare and make available a Notice of Commencement of the Amendment to the EA upon the initiation of the amendment process.
● York shall amend the EA in accordance with the Regional Municipality of York Transportation Improvements in the Donald Cousens Parkway/Morningside Link Corridor South of Highway 407 Amendment to the EA Work Plan (Appendix B) dated January 2009 and provided to the ministry.
● York shall prepare and make available a Notice of Submission of the Amendment to the EA upon the submission of the amended EA.
● Should York be unable to fulfill the conditions of the Order, York shall abandon the amendment process and officially withdraw its EA.
● York shall complete the amendment process within 12 months from the date upon which the Order is issued, subject to any extension given by the Director of the ministry’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch.
On March 11, 2009 Ministry staff met with representatives from York and Toronto to discuss the process of moving forward with a proposed amendment to the original EA and the next steps in the EA process. The ministry informed York that the amendment process was to be initiated with the publication and distribution of a formal Notice of Commencement of an Amendment to the original EA. At the conclusion of the amendment process York would be required to prepare and make available a Notice of Submission of the Amendment to the original EA.
The Notice of Commencement of an Amendment to the original EA was issued by the York on December 3, 2009.
1.5 Amended Environmental Assessment
On November 5, 2010 York submitted a draft amended EA to the ministry for review and comment. The ministry review of the draft identified a number of outstanding concerns. These concerns were submitted to York on January 13, 2011. In order to fully address the concerns raised by the ministry, York submitted a written request to the Director of the ministry’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch seeking an extension to the completion deadline of the Minister’s Order. The additional time would allow York to properly address the ministry comments on the draft amended EA. The completion deadline was therefore extended until August 1, 2011.
November 18, 2011 7 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
On July 19, 2011 York formally submitted the Transportation Improvements, Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended EA (amended EA) for a decision. The amended EA seeks approval to construct a new urban arterial roadway extending from the southern limit of the Box Grove Development Area in Markham to the future Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue intersection in Toronto. The arterial roadway is intended to provide the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link corridor with the capacity to support the increasing transportation needs between the southeast Markham and the northeast of Toronto.
The amended EA was made available for public review and comment for a seven week period which ended on September 16, 2011. A description of the undertaking can be found in Section 3.3 of this Review.
1.6 Ministry Review of the Amended Environmental Assessment
The amended EA was circulated to the GRT for review and comment. The GRT, including federal, provincial and local agencies, carried out a review of the amended EA to ensure that the information and conclusions presented in the amended EA were valid, based on their agencies’ mandates. Interested members of the public and Aboriginal communities also had an opportunity to review the amended EA and submit their comments to the ministry. All comments received by the ministry are considered by the Minister before a decision is made about the proposed undertaking.
A Notice of Completion of the Review was published in the Toronto Star, Markham Economist and Sun, and the Scarborough Mirror indicating that this Review has been completed and would be available for a five week comment period from December 2, 2011 to January 13, 2012.
Copies of the Review have been placed in the same public record locations where the original EA was available, and copies have been distributed to the GRT members and potentially affected or interested Aboriginal communities. Those members of the public who submitted comments during the original EA comment period have also received copies of the Review.
2. The Proposed Undertaking
York is seeking approval to construct a new urban arterial roadway extending from the southern limit of the Box Grove residential area in Markham to the future Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue intersection in Toronto. The arterial roadway is intended to provide the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link corridor with the capacity to support the increasing transportation needs between the southeast Markham and the northeast of Toronto. According to the York Region Transportation Master Plan (June 2002) there is a significant flow of traffic crossing the York-Toronto boundary, which is represented by Steeles Avenue. The increased traffic has resulted in the
November 18, 2011 8 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
congestion of many of the arterial roadways in the southern portion of York, some having become so congested that they are exceeding the capacity for which they were designed.
York has advised that the primary factor for the increased congestion is the lack of an arterial link between the York and Toronto in the amended EA Study Area (Figure 1). There is also no north-south freeway in York, Toronto or Durham Region (Durham) east of Highway 404. Numerous previous studies, including the Morningside Transportation Study (1994), Morningside Corridor Transportation Alternative Study (1995) and Morningside Heights Secondary Plan (1998) prepared by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), have concluded that a major arterial road is required in the Morningside Corridor to service the anticipated development in West Durham and Southeast York by 2011.
As part of the original EA process, York determined that the interaction of travel demand between York and Toronto is expected to grow proportionately with population and employment growth in York, Toronto and Durham. Both York and Markham carried out investigations of the transportation system. These included the York Region Transportation Master Plan (June 2002) and the Markham Transportation Planning Study (2002). Both studies confirmed that improvements to the transportation network are required to accommodate future travel demands.
It should be noted that since the submission of the original EA, the built environment in the EA Study Area has changed. This is primarily a result of the completion of the first phase of residential and infrastructure development in the Box Grove Residential area by Markham. The Ninth Line Bypass (now known as the Box Grove Bypass) was constructed in conjunction with the first phase of the Box Grove development, which is located in a section of the recommended alignment for the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link. In conjunction with the final build-out of the Box Grove residential area, Markham is constructing the remaining section of a Town Arterial Road to address local traffic needs from the Box Grove Bypass to the existing terminus of the Donald Cousens Parkway at Highway 407. This road is currently under construction. It should be noted that the Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road do not form part of the undertaking for which approval is being sought; however, these sections of roadways will be part of the alignment referred to as the Donald Cousens Parkway in Markham.
To account for the changes to the built environment since the submission of the original EA, York carried out additional traffic analysis based on updated population and employment projections found in the most current Official Plans and Transportation Master Plans (2010), as well as taking into consideration road and transit improvements that have been planned in the surrounding municipalities. Through this additional analysis York has concluded that the need and justification, as set forth in the original EA, remains unchanged and that additional transportation capacity is still needed between York and Toronto.
November 18, 2011 9 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
If EAA approval is granted, the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link will be completed in accordance with the terms and provisions outlined in the amended EA and any conditions of approval. In addition, York must still obtain all other legislative approvals it may require for the undertaking.
November 18, 2011 10 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
Figure 1: Transportation Improvements, Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended EA Study Area
November 18, 2011 11 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
The purpose of the Ministry 3. Results of the Ministry Review Review is to determine whether:
The Review provides the ministry’s analysis of the The EA has met the requirements of the ToR and amended EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the the EAA. amended EA nor present the information found in the There are any outstanding amended EA. For information on the decision making issues with the EA. process please refer to the amended EA itself. The amended The proposed undertaking EA and supporting documentation outlines the EA has technical merit. amendment process and demonstrates how York has used the amended EA process to determine the preferred undertaking for which approval under the EAA is being sought.
As noted earlier, the Review does not make a decision about the proposed undertaking. That is the decision of the Minister, which is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In addition, any conditions of EAA approval referred to in this document are only suggested to be imposed as a means of addressing outstanding issues in the event that the Minister decides to approve the undertaking.
3.1 Conformance with ToR and EAA Must Haves in the EA: 3.1.1 Ministry Analysis The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR. The ministry coordinated an analysis of the amended EA with the GRT that, in part, looked at whether the EA must include all the basic EAA requirements of the approved ToR, the EAA and the information requirements. Regional Municipality of York Transportation EA demonstrates where all the Improvements in the Donald Cousens additional commitments in the ToR were met, including studies and the Parkway/Morningside Link Corridor South of Highway consultation process. 407 Amendment to the EA Work Plan have been met.
Appendix A summarizes this analysis and identifies how the requirements of the ToR have been addressed in the EA.
3.1.2 Consultation
One of the key requirements of the EAA is pre-submission consultation completed during the preparation of the EA and Section 5.1 of the EAA states: EA amendments. This consultation is the responsibility of the “When preparing proposed proponent and must be done prior to the submission of the EA terms of reference and an or an amendment to the EA and in accordance with the environmental assessment, the consultation plan outlined in the ToR and any conditions the proponent shall consult with such Minister imposes in an order allowing an EA to be amended. persons as may be interested.” The ministry is satisfied with the level of consultation that occurred during the preparation of the original EA and the
November 18, 2011 12 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
amended EA. The ministry is also satisfied that the level of consultation was appropriate for the EA amendment process and the proposed undertaking. The amended EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by York to engage the GRT, the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities in the EA process.
Once an EA or amended EA is submitted to the ministry, additional ministry driven consultation occurs during a five week comment period. The GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities are provided with the opportunity to review the EA or amended EA, as the case may be, and to submit comments to the ministry on the EA or amended EA or on the undertaking for which approval is being sought. All comments received by the ministry during this comment period are forwarded to the proponent for a response as to how it proposes to address any issues or concerns that have been raised. Summaries of the all comments received during the comment period on the amended EA, along with York’s responses, are included in Tables 1-3. Copies of the submissions are also available in Appendix B.
Government Review Team
Consultation with the GRT was carried out from the initiation of the ToR in 2004 through to the submission of the original EA, and during the preparation of the amendment to the EA. The consultation program was initiated during the preparation of the ToR and it was continued up until the submission of the amended EA. York developed the consultation program to ensure that opportunities were provided to seek input and identify issues at each specific milestone of the original EA process and during the EA amendment process. The consultation process was documented in a Public Consultation Record, which provided a summary of the issues and concerns raised during the consultation process on the original and amended EA.
At the beginning of the original EA process a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established by York. The TAC was comprised of local municipalities and government agencies that expressed an interest in participating in the preparation of the original EA. The municipal members of the TAC included York, Markham, Toronto and Durham. The external agencies included the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), Canadian Pacific Rail (CP), and the Rouge Park Alliance (RPA).
The TAC was actively involved in identifying issues of concern, developing and assessing alternatives, and developing mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts. The TAC held meetings prior to each project milestone to address any issues or concerns as the original EA process progressed. In addition, a process of ongoing dialogue was maintained throughout the entire original EA study process.
During the preparation of the amendment to the EA, consultation with the GRT was carried out as a continuation of the consultation process that was undertaken during the original EA. Two meetings were held with the TAC during the EA Amendment process.
November 18, 2011 13 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
• September 17, 2009 – TAC Meeting #1 to review rationale for EA Amendment, overview of Work Plan of the EA Amendment, consultation strategy, and update of existing conditions.
• January 26, 2010 – TAC Meeting #2 to review the update of the alternatives, alternative evaluation and preliminary recommendations.
In addition to meetings with the TAC, presentations were also made to York and Municipal Committees of Council during the EA Amendment process. Presentations during the EA Amendment process included:
• March 25, 2010 – Presentation to York Region Planning and Economic Development Committee.
• April 13, 2010 – Presentation to Town of Markham Development Services Committee.
The GRT was consulted during the EA amendment process. They were notified at key points of the amendment process, including the Notice of Commencement, notification of TAC meetings and Notice of Completion.
During the EA amendment process, issues identified by the TAC and the GRT were noted and incorporated where appropriate in the EA amendment. A draft of the amended EA was provided to members of the TAC and the GRT for review in November 2010. In addition, meetings were held with the RPA, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and the TRCA during the EA amendment process to discuss issues related to the potential Rouge River, Morningside Tributary and Neilson Tributary crossings.
Public Consultation
The public, which includes the general public, communities, interest groups and property owners, were provided with several opportunities to participate and provide input in the preparation of the EA and the amended EA. Public participation in the EA and the EA amendment process was achieved in a variety of ways.
Mailing lists were prepared during the ToR stage of the EA process and were carried forward during the preparation of the original EA. Interested members of the public were added to the list throughout the EA process. The mailing lists provided an on-going means for York to update the public on the EA process and to request comments.
Two formal Public Consultation Centres were held by York. The first Public Consultation Centre was held on October 13 and 14, 2004 and involved a review of the need and justification for the transportation improvements, the transportation improvement alternative solutions that were examined, the development and assessment
November 18, 2011 14 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review of these alternatives, and the next steps of the study. The second Public Consultation Centre was held on April 20 and 21, 2005 and involved the review of the analysis and evaluation of transportation alternatives, and the identification of the technically preferred alternative. A public Consultation Summary Report was prepared following each consultation centre and was included as part of the original EA documentation.
During the EA amendment process, the general public, communities, interest groups and property owners were consulted. They were notified at key points during the amendment process, including the Notice of Commencement, notification of Public Consultation Centres and the Notice of Completion.
York held two formal Public Consultation Centres during the EA amendment process. The purpose of the Public Consultation Centres was to present work carried out as part of the EA amendment process and to present the technically preferred alternative. The first Public Consultation Centre was held in Toronto on May 11, 2010 and the second was held in Markham on May 13, 2010. York placed notices of the Public Consultation Centres in local and national newspapers, including the Toronto Star, Markham Economist and Sun, and the Scarborough Mirror. York also mailed notices about the Public Consultation Centres to property owners bounded by Highway 407 to the north and Finch Avenue to the south, Markham Road to the west and York Durham Line to the east. A copy of the notice was also mailed to each individual who had previously provided comments during the EA process. A Summary Report of the Public Consultation Centres was prepared following and included as part of the amended EA documentation.
Aboriginal Community Consultation
In addition to consultation with the broader public, Aboriginal communities were consulted. Aboriginal communities may have special Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal rights stem from practices, land claims that need to be considered. customs or traditions which are integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal community claiming the right. During the preparation of the original EA, York contacted both the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) Treaty rights stem from the signing of and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development treaties by Aboriginal peoples with the Canada (formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). Crown. York was informed that neither agency was aware of a land claim or any ongoing Aboriginal litigation within Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are the EA Study Area. protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In addition, York contacted the following Aboriginal groups and communities with a potential interest in the undertaking due to its location and requested their input:
● Mississaugas of the New Credit
November 18, 2011 15 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
● Anishinabek Nation/Union of Ontario Indians ● Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians ● Native Canadian Centre for Toronto ● Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation ● Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation ● Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation ● Wahta Mohawks First Nation ● Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte ● Oneida First Nation ● Hiawatha First Nation ● Curve Lake First Nation ● Beausoleil First Nation ● Alderville First Nation ● Huron Wendat of Wendake Quebec ● Algonquins of Pikwakanagan ● Chippewas of Mnjikaning (Rama) First Nation ● Moose Deer Point First Nation
Each of the above groups and communities was provided a copy of the original EA documentation by this ministry. The ministry Review of the original EA found that no opposition or concerns were raised by the consulted Aboriginal communities during the preparation or submission of the original EA.
During the EA amendment process, consultation with Aboriginal communities was continued by York. In addition to the Aboriginal communities that were consulted during the preparation of the original EA, the following Aboriginal groups and communities were also contacted by York during the preparation of the EA amendment:
● Union of Ontario Indians – Nippising First Nation ● Iroquois Confederacy ● Munsee-Delaware Nation ● Metis Nation of Ontario ● Chippewas of Nawash ● Chiefs of Ontario ● Coordinator for Williams Treaty First Nations
Aboriginal groups and communities were consulted at key milestones during the amendment process, including the Notice of Commencement, Notification of Public Consultation Centres and the Notice of Completion. A draft of the amended EA was also provided to Aboriginal groups and communities for review in November 2010. Issues identified by Aboriginal communities were noted and incorporated where appropriate in the amended EA.
Alderville First Nation indicated that the Project has minimal potential to impact its rights, and wishes to be kept apprised throughout the project, including about
November 18, 2011 16 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
archaeological findings and environmental impacts. The Chippewas of Rama First Nation indicated that it had forwarded the matter to the Coordinator for the Williams Treaties First Nations. To date, no other Aboriginal communities have submitted comments to York or the ministry about the amended EA.
Ministry Conclusions on the Consultation Program
Overall, the ministry believes that York has provided sufficient opportunities for the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities to participate and provide input during the preparation of the original EA and the EA amendment. The amended EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by York to engage these groups during the original EA and EA amendment process. The amended EA clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they have been addressed by York.
3.1.3 Conclusion
The amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the ToR and the EA amendment work plan. The amended EA also demonstrates how the required components of the EAA for consultation have been met.
3.2 EA Process
An EA is a planning process that requires a proponent to identify an existing problem or opportunity; consider alternative ways of addressing a problem or opportunity; evaluate the environmental effects of these alternatives; and, select a preferred alternative that will become the undertaking for which approval under the EAA will be sought.
In August 2002, York commenced an EA process to address the transportation needs in the Markham Bypass Corridor (now referred to as the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Corridor). The analysis of transportation improvements is a Schedule C project under the Municipal Engineers Association Municipal Class EA; however, due to the expected public and agency interest in this matter, and the concern regarding the potential impacts to the Rouge River, its tributaries and the Rouge Park, York voluntarily decided to prepare an individual EA. The purpose of the EA was to address the existing and future transportation deficiencies across the boundary of the south-eastern areas of Markham and the developed areas and the proposed to be developed areas of the north eastern portion of Toronto.
On December 23, 2005, York submitted the original EA to the ministry for a decision. The original EA sought approval to construct a continuous four lane urban arterial roadway, extending from Highway 407 southerly to the future Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue intersection in Toronto. Due to the fact that York only has the authority to construct the portion of the preferred undertaking located within its jurisdictional boundaries, it was the decision of Toronto as to whether or not the relevant portion of the undertaking would be constructed within its boundaries. Although Toronto
November 18, 2011 17 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
acknowledged the need to address the increasing transportation demands in the area it opposed to the preferred alignment of the roadway recommended in the original EA.
On July 2, 2009 the Minister issued an Order to York which granted permission to re- examine the alternative alignments studied in the original EA in consideration of the outstanding jurisdictional issue and the transportation needs of Toronto by way of an amendment to the original EA.
At the start of the EA amendment study, York re-examined and evaluated the range of alternatives presented in the original EA. The alternative solutions evaluated included:
● Do nothing; ● Widen existing roads (Base Case); ● Widen existing roads beyond base case; ● Base case plus dedicated transit facility; ● Base case plus transit initiatives; ● Base case plus a transportation management plan; ● Base case plus transit initiatives and a transportation management plan; ● Base case plus a new road alignment (Markham Bypass Corridor south of Highway 407); and, ● Base case plus transit initiatives, a transportation management plan, and a new road alignment.
York followed a logical and transparent decision-making process that was clearly outlined in the amended EA. York confirmed that the study area for the amended EA remained the same as the original EA, and confirmed that the existing transportation conditions and alternative solutions from the original EA had also not changed.
The amended EA provides an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternative solutions that would address the current and future transportation needs in south-eastern Markham and the north-eastern portion of Toronto. The documentation of this evaluation methodology clearly outlines how the evaluation criteria were developed and applied to each alternative. Each of the alternative solutions was developed with the intent of building upon each other to form a wide range of transportation network options. The proposed improvements to the transportation network were designed to be consistent with the recommendations of the York’s Transportation Master Plan. Each of the alternative solutions was then carried forward in the amended EA process for further analysis and evaluation to determine the preferred undertaking.
The analysis and evaluation of alternative solutions found that planned road improvements; transit improvements; a detailed transportation demand management strategy; and, a new major arterial road provided significant improvements to the existing transportation network and addressed the capacity needed to accommodate the planned growth and travel demands of the amended EA study area. In particular, the construction
November 18, 2011 18 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
of an arterial road would provide the foundation upon which York could develop options for the design and implementation of both transit and road network improvements.
Upon selecting a new road alignment as the preferred solution, an evaluation of alternative methods for carrying out the undertaking was conducted, using the same evaluation criteria presented in the original EA. York identified nine alternative methods, including determining the general location of the new road and specific alignments. The alternatives were developed based on design criteria that would allow York to develop alternatives that were considered reasonable, feasible and reflected the types of constraints that existed within the study area.
Each alternative method was evaluated using a set of criteria that were developed by York to be relevant, clear and logical. The alternatives were evaluated based on the advantages and disadvantages of potential environmental effects and were presented in a traceable manner. The evaluation was built upon baseline data and the existing conditions in the study area. York’s evaluation was completed using criteria that fell into the following categories:
● Socio-Economic Environmental Effects ● Natural Environmental Effects ● Transportation Benefits ● Cost
York also considered public opinion and general service provisions as they related to each alternative. The screening criteria were weighted based on the relative importance to each aspect of the environment, and were then given a quantitative or qualitative result. These results were tabulated and presented in section 6 of the amended EA in the form of a matrix.
York completed various updates to the studies and investigations carried out as part of the original EA in order to reconfirm and support the evaluation of the alternatives and the selection of the preferred undertaking. Feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, natural heritage features assessments, air quality and noise impact assessments, archaeological assessments were all completed and presented in the amended EA for the potential development and implementation of a new arterial roadway. York also considered public input obtained during public information centres and general service provisions as they related to each alternative.
The analysis of alternatives assessed the potential environmental effects for the alternatives to the undertaking, the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of the mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects. The ministry and GRT have not raised any issues of concern in regard to the proposed mitigation measures and proposed monitoring program.
November 18, 2011 19 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
3.2.1 Key Issues
Key issues regarding the amended EA were gathered during pre-submission consultation and the amended EA review comment period. During this time the GRT, the public and Aboriginal communities were provide with opportunities to submit comments on the amended EA and the undertaking. A summary of the comments received, including York’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction, can be found in the Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the Appendices of this Review.
Air Quality
As part of the EA amendment process, York conducted air quality assessments to determine the potential for emission impacts from the undertaking on air quality. For this purpose, York used the Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for pollution concentrations to evaluate impacts in an air quality report. Ministry technical staff have reviewed the Air Quality Impact Assessment for Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link report and requested that York provide additional clarification about the approach taken to develop the data used in the air quality assessments. In particular, York was requested to explain why the average 90th percentile background concentration for ambient air was used for all parameters instead of the maximum 90th percentile of the 5 year monitoring data.
In a response to the ministry’s comments, York has clarified that the use of the average 90th percentile in monitoring data from the five most recent years of data from representative ministry monitoring stations is consistent with the approach that York and its consultants have applied for previous transportation studies that were submitted to and accepted by the ministry. York has identified that for the purposes of assessing air quality as part of the EA amendment, the use of the maximum 90th percentile for background contaminant concentrations would not change the conclusions of the Air Quality Impact Assessment nor would there be any predicted exceedances of applicable criteria at any identified sensitive receptor location.
The ministry is satisfied with the response and clarification provided by York. The ministry is also satisfied that the use of the maximum 90th percentile for background contaminant concentrations has no implications for the outcome of the air quality assessments in the amended EA.
Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking
During the EA amendment process, updates to the existing transportation network and the existing conditions of the EA Study Area were taken into consideration and reviewed to determine if the effectiveness and feasibility of each of the alternative alignments from the original EA remained unchanged. Based on the updates, York made refinements as necessary to the alignments being considered as ‘alternative methods’.
November 18, 2011 20 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
The amended EA identifies that there have been some improvements in the transportation network since the submission of the original EA. In particular, a number of roadways have been or are being constructed as part of the Box Grove residential area build out. Ministry staff have noted that the addition of these new roadways to the transportation network do appear to have been taken into consideration by York in determining if the alignments being considered as ‘alternative methods’ require modifications.
The ministry requested additional clarification from York to explain why each of the alternative alignments being considered start at the 407 and Donald Cousens Parkway interchange and not at the terminus of the town arterial road constructed or being constructed as part the Box Grove development.
York responded by explaining that the Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road were planned and constructed by Markham to address a separate and local transportation need. During the EA amendment process, York determined that the location of these roads could be utilized in the design of alternative alignments as the location of these roadways were consistent with the preferred location of a new arterial roadway. Although they do not form part of the undertaking for which approval is being sought, the location of the Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road were considered during the design and evaluation of the alternative alignments being assessed as part of the EA amendment process.
The ministry is satisfied that the manner in which each alternative alignment was refined by York is consistent with the updates to the existing transportation network since the submission of the original EA. There is nothing preventing York from utilizing the updates to the transportation network in the design and evaluation of alternative alignments to address the broader transportation needs in the amended EA study area.
Traffic Modelling
As part of the EA amendment process, York carried out additional traffic modelling to assess the design and feasibility of each of the alternative alignments being considered. The manner in which the additional traffic modelling was to be undertaken was set forth in York’s EA amendment work plan. In the work plan, York committed to carrying out a detailed micro-simulation analysis to assess the traffic operational characteristics of each of the alignment alternatives from the original EA. This commitment was further supported by a condition of the Minister’s Order issued to York, requiring that York amend the EA in accordance with the EA amendment work plan.
A review of the additional traffic monitoring carried out as part of the EA amendment process noted that York did not carryout a detailed micro-simulation analysis of each of the alignment alternatives from the original EA. During the amendment process, York determined that the ability of traffic modelling involving a micro-simulation to identify the traffic operational characteristics of each of the alternative alignments was limited. As a result, York grouped each of the alternative alignments into one of two functional
November 18, 2011 21 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
scenarios for the purpose of traffic modelling. The alternative alignments were categorized as either “continuous” or “discontinuous”. The functional scenarios were then used as the basis for traffic modelling. This change in scope is not supported by the commitment set forth in York’s work plan.
The ministry has requested clarification from York to explain why, from a transportation modelling perspective, the ability of traffic modelling involving a micro-simulation to identify the traffic operational characteristics of each of the alternative alignments was determined to be limited. York was also requested to provide a more detailed explanation as to how the limitations of a micro-simulation analysis would affect the accuracy of the traffic modelling findings and the ability of York to reasonably compare the operational characteristics of each of the alternative alignments identified in the amended EA with one another.
York explained that a micro-simulation analysis can only really distinguish operational traffic differences between various alignments when there are substantive differences in their functional characteristics, such as turning radiuses, the number of lanes and posted speed limits in kilometres (km). In the case of the discontinuous alternative alignments, the difference between a four lane and a six lane cross section along Steeles Avenue represents a substantive difference. The same can not be said for the continuous alignments, as they each share similar functional characteristics. York therefore conducted a separate micro-simulation scenario for each of the discontinuous alignments. In the case of the continuous alternative alignments, the traffic differences were not considered sufficient enough to result in any noticeable differences. Therefore, the continuous alternative alignments were grouped into a single functional scenario for the purpose of traffic micro-simulation modelling. The findings of the additional traffic modelling were sufficient for use in identify the traffic operational characteristics of the alignments being considered and were used to assess the design and feasibility of each of the alternative alignments being considered.
The ministry is satisfied that by combining the continuous alignment alternatives into a single micro-simulation scenario York did not affect its ability to reasonably compare the traffic performance of each of the alternative alignments and did not affect the overall conclusions of the evaluation of alternatives.
Impacts to the Local Community
Members of the public have expressed their opposition to the proposed alignment because of concerns relating to noise impacts, air quality, light pollution, impacts to the Rouge River water quality and natural areas, loss of greenspace, additional traffic on Morningside Avenue and Neilson Road, and the overall safety of pedestrians.
York has expressed its commitment to ensure that any concerns related to the potential impacts of the undertaking will managed through mitigation provision in the amended EA and the commitments that may be made conditions of EA approval. The ministry is
November 18, 2011 22 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
satisfied that the environmental impacts can be managed through the commitments made in response to the comments received during the comment period.
The ministry is further satisfied that the provisions of the amended EA, and any additional commitments that may be made conditions of EA approval, will ensure that the undertaking will be designed and carried out to comply with ministry standards.
Provisions for Amending the EA
Upon review of the amended EA by ministry staff, it was determined that the provisions for addressing changes to the undertaking after approval do not appear to take into account the provisions of section 12 of the EAA for post-approval changes to the undertaking.
The amended EA identifies a series of provisions to address changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. Of particular concern are the provisions which address major changes to the undertaking. Section 12 of the EAA states that if a proponent wishes to change an undertaking following its approval, the proposed change is an undertaking for the purposes of the EAA. This means that an individual EA would be required for the change, unless a Class EA or other process were available. The amended EA provisions can not change or supersede the requirements of the EAA. The ministry is therefore unable to support York’s proposed provisions to address post approval changes to the amended EA. Accordingly if the Minister decides to give approval to proceed with the undertaking, he will be advised to impose conditions of approval that rectify this conflict with the EAA.
3.2.2 Conclusion
Overall, the ministry, in consultation with the GRT, is satisfied with York’s decision making process. The amended EA contains a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity. The amended EA presents an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternative methods of addressing transportation improvements in the amended EA study area. The evaluation of alternative methods used criteria that considered the broad definition of the environment (this includes natural, public health and safety, social, economic, cultural, and transportation). The amended EA provided a description of the affected environment in the amended EA study area and identified the elements of the environment that may be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the alternatives of the proposed undertaking. The amended EA also describes the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed undertaking, based on those potential environmental impacts. The ministry is therefore satisfied that the amended EA demonstrates, in a logical and transparent process, why the preferred alternative was selected.
November 18, 2011 23 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
3.3 Proposed Undertaking
The proposed undertaking is clearly described in the amended EA documentation, and was evaluated based on the advantages and disadvantages to the environment. A broad definition of the environment was used in order to evaluate all potential impacts. This definition included the natural environment, the socio-economic environment, and the cultural environment, as well as public health and safety.
The proposed undertaking is the construction of a four lane urban arterial roadway extension of Morningside Avenue from McNicoll Avenue north to Steeles Avenue in Toronto; a widening of Steeles Avenue to a six lane urban roadway from east of Tapscott Road to east of Ninth Line; a widening of Ninth Line to a four lane urban roadway from Steeles Avenue to the south limit of the Box Grove Development Area in Markham; and, new ramps at the Donald Cousens Parkway and Highway 407 Interchange to provide access onto Highway 407 from the south. The undertaking also includes a new crossing of the Neilson Tributary and replacement of the existing Steeles Avenue crossings of the Rouge River and Morningside Tributary.
The proposed undertaking will cross the Rouge River at Steeles Avenue, the Morningside Tributary at Steeles Avenue, and the Neilson Tributary just north of the McNicoll Avenue extension. The Neilson Tributary crossing will be a new structure north of the existing terminus of the Morningside Avenue McNicoll Avenue intersection.
Construction of the proposed undertaking will be carried out in three main segments:
● The widening of Ninth Line to a four lane urban roadway from Steeles Avenue to the southern limit of the Box Grove Development Area in Markham (1.2 km); ● The widening of Steeles Avenue to a six lane urban roadway from east of Tapscott Road to east of Ninth Line in Toronto (2 km); and, ● The extension of Morningside Avenue from McNicoll Avenue north to Steeles Avenue in Toronto (1.5 km).
The segment of roadway in Markham is to be constructed by York as part of its 2014 capital work plan, subject to annual York Regional Council review. Given the multi- jurisdictional nature of the overall undertaking the final construction staging strategy for the segments of the roadway in Toronto are not known at this time.
The construction of the Highway 407 southeast and southwest ramps are also part of the undertaking for which EAA approval is being sought. The timing of implementation will be subject to a decision by the 407 Electronic Toll Route (ETR).
Should approval be granted to proceed with the proposed undertaking, York has committed to initiating a multi-party discussion related to cost sharing and implementation of improvements along Steeles Avenue. A cost sharing and implementation agreement is expected to include York and Toronto, with potential
November 18, 2011 24 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
involvement from the MTO, Durham and the City of Pickering; given their interest in the newly proposed Seaton Area development and need for boundary area transportation capacity as identified in the Durham/Toronto/York Area Transportation Study and Seaton Servicing Class EA.
3.3.1 Key Issues
Key issues regarding the amended EA process completed by York were gathered during the pre-submission consultation and the amended EA review comment period. While the procedural and legislative requirements of the ToR and EAA have been met, issues were raised during the public and government review of the amended EA that needed to be addressed before a decision about the undertaking can be made. A copy of each comment received is contained in Appendix B. All comments, including York’s responses and the ministry’s level of satisfaction can be found in Tables 1 -3.
The City of Toronto – Municipal Jurisdiction
The review of the amended EA by the ministry has concluded that the jurisdictional issue which prompted the EA amendment process has not been fully resolved to the satisfaction of the ministry. The amended EA does not provide enough certainty to confirm whether or not the recommended preferred undertaking will be implemented as described in the amended EA. Given that the original EA was amended to address the issue of jurisdictional authority regarding the implementation of the undertaking, it is the ministry’s expectation that York provide enough information to the ministry so that, should the Minister decide to approve the undertaking, there would be a level of certainty that the undertaking would be carried out as contemplated in the amended EA.
A key component of the description of the preferred undertaking is an explanation as to how the undertaking for which approval is being sought will be implemented. This often involves an overview of the roles and responsibilities associated with the cost, construction, operation and monitoring of the preferred undertaking. The amended EA clearly documents that the construction and financing of the portions of the recommended preferred alignment within Toronto are either not known or have not been identified at the time of submission.
When an EA is submitted to the ministry that seeks approval for an undertaking where the schedule for implementation or the roles and responsibilities for the cost, construction, operation and monitoring of the undertaking are not known, this is sometimes resolved by the Minister imposing conditions of approval requiring a proponent to submit documentation on these items prior to the commencement of construction. In this case, however, such a condition of approval may not be appropriate as it may in effect place the final decision on whether or not the undertaking may be built with Toronto, as it will ultimately be Toronto that decides whether or not it agrees to the proposed cost sharing and implementation agreement.
November 18, 2011 25 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
On April 13, 2011, during the preparation of the amended EA, the City of Toronto submitted a letter (Appendix B) to the ministry indicating support for the undertaking. The letter also clearly identified that support for the undertaking is conditional on the establishment of a cost sharing and implementation agreement, which would define the roles and responsibilities of both parties in the cost, construction, operation and monitoring of the undertaking if it is approved. Should an agreement not be reached it may be reasonably concluded that the undertaking, as described in the amended EA, may never be built. Furthermore, there is nothing preventing Toronto from carrying out improvements to its transportation network along the proposed alignment and in a manner that does not complement or support the undertaking for which York is seeking approval. A decision to approve the undertaking would not protect the transportation corridor along and south of Steeles Avenue from any proposed development or improvement by Toronto.
The amended EA identifies that York is seeking approval for an undertaking of which the majority is to be located outside of their jurisdictional authority. The amended EA also states that York is seeking approval for the undertaking as a sole proponent. The fundamental issue with the amended EA is that the Minister can only impose conditions of approval on a proponent who is named as such in the EA application. Toronto is not a co-proponent for the undertaking and therefore the Minister may not impose conditions of approval upon Toronto that would ensure that the proposed undertaking would be implemented as described in the amended EA.
York has responded to the ministry’s concerns about jurisdictional authority by assuring the ministry that Toronto is supportive of the preferred alignment for which approval is being sought. In addition, York has indicated that significant progress has been made towards finalizing a cost sharing and implementation agreement with York. Should approval be granted for the undertaking, York has committed in writing to initiating post approval multi-party discussions to develop a final cost sharing and implementation agreement. The manner and timing for this commitment has not yet been determined.
The ministry is supportive of York’s commitment to work with Toronto to determine how and when the portions of the preferred undertaking can be built; however, the ministry is concerned that should an agreement not be reached with Toronto on the cost and implementation of the undertaking, the undertaking may never be built or it may not be implemented as contemplated in the amended EA. The issue of jurisdictional authority will be considered by the Minister in making a decision about the preferred undertaking.
Crossing of the Rouge River
The MNR, the RPA, and the TRCA have each submitted comments as part of the GRT during the EA amendment process and during the comment period on the amended EA (Appendix B). The comments submitted expressed concern in regarding the proposed crossing of the Rouge River, the Morningside Tributary and Neilson Tributary.
November 18, 2011 26 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
The agencies each expressed concern that the detailed design of the road and crossing structures are not a requirement of the EA amendment process, and that these designs are therefore not part of the amended EA review. In particular, the TRCA recommended that any river crossing be designed to encourage wildlife passage and public use, and that the Rouge Park is not partitioned by the proposed transportation infrastructure.
Comments submitted by MNR also identified concerns in regards to the proposed location of bridge crossings. It is the opinion of MNR technical staff that any crossings over a water course should be designed perpendicular to the stream alignment. This is to ensure that that an adequate separation of distance to a water course is maintained. Failure to do so may result in significant impacts should the water course migrate.
York has agreed to consult with the MNR, TRCA, and the RPA during the detailed design phase of the crossing structures. York has expressed its commitment to ensure that any detailed design will be developed to encourage wildlife passage and public use, and that the Rouge Park is not partitioned by the proposed transportation infrastructure.
3.3.2 Conclusion
York has provided adequate responses and updates to the amended EA in order to address the technical concerns raised by the GRT during the agency and public comment period. In addition, York has committed to including those agencies that expressed an interest to participate and comment on the final design features of the undertaking. The ministry is satisfied, based on comments provided by review agencies and York that this will ensure that any potential impacts resulting from the undertaking are appropriately managed. The ministry is also satisfied that the environmental effects of the proposed undertaking can be managed through the commitments made in the amended EA or through additional work that may be carried out by York.
The ministry, however, is concerned that the issue of jurisdictional authority has not been fully resolved. Should an agreement not be reached with Toronto on the cost and implementation of the undertaking, the undertaking may never be built or it may not be implemented as contemplated in the amended EA.
4. Summary of the Ministry Review
The ministry is satisfied that York has prepared the amended EA in accordance with the requirements of the EAA, and has provided sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about the application to proceed with the undertaking. This Review explains the ministry’s analysis of the amended EA.
The Review has concluded that the amended EA has assessed and evaluated alternative methods to arrive at the preferred undertaking; assessed the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and proposed undertaking; and, provided sufficient mitigation
November 18, 2011 27 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
and monitoring measures to ensure that the potential negative environmental effects of the undertaking will be minimized. The ministry is satisfied that the analysis of alternatives assessed the potential environmental effects for the alternatives to the undertaking, the alternative methods and the proposed undertaking, and provides a description of the mitigation and monitoring measures to address the potential negative environmental effects will be minimized.
The Review has concluded that York has provided sufficient time and opportunities for the GRT, the general public, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities to comment on the preparation of the amended EA. The ministry is satisfied that the amended EA clearly documents the consultation methods utilized by York to engage these groups during the amended EA process. The amended EA clearly sets out the issues and concerns raised and how they were addressed by York. York’s consultation methods were found to be in accordance with the requirements of the ToR and its amended EA work plan.
The Review has also concluded that there are several outstanding issues that must be considered when making a decision to proceed with the undertaking. It is the ministry’s opinion that the noted technical issues with the amended EA can be addressed through proposed Conditions of Approval.
The outstanding issue with the amended EA application is not a technical matter but a matter of jurisdiction and York’s ability to implement the undertaking. This does not prevent the Minister from exercising his authority to make a decision about the application. There appears to be some uncertainty regarding the ability to implement the portion of the undertaking within Toronto’s jurisdictional authority. However, the ministry is encouraged by Toronto’s April 13, 2011 letter indicating that it is supportive of the amended EA and that it has committed to participating in multiparty discussions related to cost sharing and implementation of the planned improvements along Steeles Avenue.
An EA determines if, on the basis of the environmental effects of an undertaking, the undertaking should be allowed to proceed. The ministry is of the opinion that this undertaking, if implemented in its entirety, would be consistent with the purpose of the EAA. It will address significant transportation issues and York has demonstrated that the balance of positive and negative environmental effects of building and putting into operation this roadway are better than the effects of doing nothing. Particularly, easing traffic congestion will have the effect of reducing air pollution, contaminant run-off and noise and other property impacts on existing roads.
November 18, 2011 28 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
5. What Happens Now? Next Step in the The Review will be made available for a five-week comment EA Process period. During this time, all interested parties, including the public, the GRT and Aboriginal communities can submit ToR Approval comments to the ministry about the proposed undertaking, the ↓ amended EA and/or the Review. During the comment period EA Preparation anyone can request that the Minister refer either all or part of ↓ the amended EA to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a EA Submission hearing if they believe that their concerns have not been addressed. ↓ EA Comment Period At the end of the Review comment period, ministry staff will ↓ make a recommendation to the Minister concerning whether Ministry Review the amended EA has been prepared in accordance with the ↓ ToR and the requirements of the EAA and whether the Review proposed undertaking should be approved. When making a Comment Period decision, the Minister will consider the purpose of the EAA, the ToR, the amended EA, the Review, the comments ↓ Minister’s Decision submitted during the amended EA and the Review comment periods and any other matters the Minister may consider relevant.
The Minister will make one of the following decisions:
Give approval to proceed with the undertaking; Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions; 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.
The Minister’s decision to approve, approve with conditions or refusal to give approval to proceed with the undertaking is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
November 18, 2011 29 Transportation Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended Environmental Assessment Review
5.1 Additional Approvals Required
If EAA approval is granted, York will still require other If EAA approval is legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this granted, the undertaking. Section 9.3 of the amended EA outlines additional proponent must still approvals that may be required. These approvals may include: obtain any other permits or approvals required to construct Municipal Building Permits for the Maintenance Facility; and operate this Toronto and Region Conservation Authority permits; undertaking. Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada authorization Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Protection Act approvals, including for the proposed storm sewers and stormwater; Permits under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act approval; and, Any Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources approvals.
The above list is not all inclusive and other approvals may be required as the project proceeds. These approvals cannot be issued until approval under the EAA is granted.
5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking
The EA identifies a series of provisions for how to accommodate and address changes to the undertaking if approval is granted. As noted previously, given the issues surrounding these provisions the ministry will recommend that the Minister, if the undertaking is approved, impose conditions to modify these provisions such that any major changes are themselves deemed to be undertakings for which EA approval will be required.
If the Region determines that a new concern that was not identified in the EA is significant, the Region will conduct the Detail Design for the affected component of the project under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, 2007. This will include the preparation of a Transportation Environmental Study Report and will provide an opportunity to re-examine the route location or the balance of the design. The Region will conduct formal public and agency consultation as part of this process.
November 18, 2011 30 APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Act and Terms of Reference Requirements of the Environmental Assessment
EA Decision Making EAA, ToR and Work Plan Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA Problem/Opportunities Identify an existing problem The EA should contain a brief explanation According to the York Region Transportation or opportunity of the problem or opportunity that Master Plan (June 2002) there is a significant flow prompted the proposed activity. of traffic crossing the York-Toronto boundary (Steeles Avenue). The increased traffic has Purpose of the Undertaking: If a specific undertaking has been resulted in the congestion of many of the arterial s.6.1(2)(a). identified provide a brief description. roadways in the southern portion of the Region, having become so congested that they are Confirm Need and Review original EA Study Area and exceeding the capacity for which they were Justification conclusion from current transportation network conditions. designed. original EA The purpose of the undertaking is intended to provide a corridor with the capacity to support the increasing transportation needs between the southeast Town of Markham and the northeast City of Toronto (Toronto).
York Region (Region) has provided a detailed description of the problem/opportunity. The EA adequately described its purpose.
The Region reviewed and analysed the existing built environment, land uses, natural environment conditions and an updated traffic analysis.
Alternatives Description and Statement of “Alternatives to” represent functionally Section 5 of the EA included a description and the Rationale for the different ways of addressing the problem rationale for nine “alternatives to” including: Alternatives to: or opportunity. widening existing roads, dedicated transit initiatives, a transportation demand management Alternative to s.6.1(2)(b)(iii) A reasonable range of “alternatives to” plan, new road alignments, and do nothing. should be identified and evaluated. The proponent should be able to justify that it A reasonable range of “alternatives to” has been
- 1 - EA Decision Making EAA, ToR and Work Plan Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA has considered a reasonable range of identified and evaluated. alternatives. The “do nothing” alternative was included in the The “do nothing” alternative to should be evaluation of “alternatives to”. included in the evaluation and will represent the “bench mark” situation. The preferred “alternative to” selected was a combination of all alternatives based around the construction of a new road alignment.
Description and Statement of “Alternative methods” include a Section 6 of the EA presents and describes the the Rationale for the description of different ways of rationale for “alternative methods”. Alternatives methods: implementing the preferred “alternative to”. A reasonable range of “alternative methods” has Alternative Methods been described in the EA to address the problem s.6.1(2)(b)(ii) A reasonable range of “alternative identified, and are within the capability of the methods” should be identified and Region to implement. outlined. The EA clearly explains how the Region evaluated the “alternative methods” to determine the proposed undertaking. Reassess the “alternative A comparative assessment will be carried The amended EA does not carryout a comparative methods”. out between each of the nine alternative assessment of the “alternative methods” from the alignments from the original EA. original EA. Instead, the amended EA places each of the nine alternative methods from the original EA into a category of being either continuous or discontinuous. The amended EA then carries out a very high level comparison of a discontinuous versus discontinuous alignment. Evaluation Description of the Proponents must consider the broad The study area includes southeast Markham and Environment definition of the environment including Northeast Toronto (Scarborough). Information s.6.1(2)(c)(i) the natural, biophysical, social, economic, about the existing environment of the study area built and cultural conditions. can be found in Section 4 of the EA.
The EA must provide a description of the The Region considered the broad definition of the
- 2 - EA Decision Making EAA, ToR and Work Plan Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA existing environmental conditions in the environment including the natural, biophysical, study area. social, economic, built, and cultural environment.
The EA must identify those elements of The EA provided a description of the existing the environment that may be reasonably environment within the study area to establish expected to be affected, either directly or baseline conditions. indirectly, by the proposed undertaking and/or the alternatives. The EA identified the elements of the environment that may be reasonably expected to be affected by the proposed undertaking and the alternatives. Description of Potential Both positive and negative environmental Potential positive and negative environmental Environmental Effects effects should be discussed. effects were described for the “alternative methods” s.6.1(2)(c)(ii) and the undertaking in Section 6.5 and 6.6 of the The EA must identify methods and studies EA. used to analyze the potential environmental effects. The methods used The description included the potential for impacts are contingent on the type of project. on the following aspects of the environment: Natural Impact assessment methods and criteria Social-Economic used during the evaluation should be Cultural identified. Agricultural
Transportation The methods chosen must be clear, Cost traceable and replicable so that interested
parties can understand the analysis and
logic used throughout the EA. The EA identified methods and studies used to analyze the potential environmental effects of the alternatives and the proposed undertaking including: Biological studies Hydrogeology studies Surface water studies Social assessments Archaeological assessments Planned land use assessments
- 3 - EA Decision Making EAA, ToR and Work Plan Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA Economic assessments Transportation studies
The methods chosen to analyze the environmental effects are clear, traceable, and replicable. Description of the Actions A description of future commitments, A description of future commitments to prevent, Necessary to Prevent, studies and a work plan may be included change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects is Change, Mitigate or Remedy as part of the actions necessary to prevent, provided in Sections 8 and 9 of the EA. the Environmental Effects change, mitigate or remedy environmental Commitments include: s.6.1(2)(c)(iii) effects for each alternative for the ultimate Mitigation measures for net environmental purpose of comparing them. effects Contingency plans Monitoring programs Community relations plan
The potential environmental effects and mitigation measures for the proposed undertaking have been considered throughout the evaluation. Evaluation of Advantages The preferred alternative should be The evaluation of advantages and disadvantages to and Disadvantages to the identified through this evaluation. the environment is outlined in Section 6.5.3. Environment s.6.1(2)(d) An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives to the environment led to the selection of the preferred alternative in Section 6.6.
The proponent’s decision making is clear, traceable, and reproducible.
The proponent clearly demonstrated why the preferred alternative was selected over the others.
Description of Consultation A description of stakeholder consultation The Region completed a comprehensive with Interested Stakeholders that occurred during the preparation of the consultation program (Section 2.5) to ensure that s.6.1(2)(e) EA needs be documented and should interested persons, groups, organizations, agencies,
- 4 - EA Decision Making EAA, ToR and Work Plan Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA include consultation methods used, and local Aboriginal communities had an frequency of consultation, dates that opportunity to provide comment and input into the events occurred, target audience, EA. Specific efforts included: descriptions of key milestones for which The establishment of a Technical stakeholders are providing input, Advisory Committee. comments received. Meetings were held with regulatory agencies. The EA must identify any Aboriginal Media advertising was used to ensure consultation efforts that have been made interested parties were aware of including methods for identifying consultation events. potentially interested First Nations, who The project website was continually was consulted, when and how consultation updated to provide information to the occurred and any comments received from public and to communicate how concerns First Nations. could be expressed. 2 public information sessions were held to The EA should include outline conflict discuss key milestones in the EA resolution techniques to resolve issues amendment process and to present the used by the proponent to resolve recommended preferred undertaking. outstanding issues with any stakeholders. The amended EA identified Aboriginal There must be clear documentation as to consultation efforts including methods for how issues and concerns have been identifying potentially interested addressed. Aboriginal communities, describing how consultation occurred, and included comments received from Aboriginal communities as part of the EA amendment. Selection Process Proposed Undertaking The description of the undertaking should The proposed undertaking is to construct a four- specify what the proponent is seeking lane urban arterial roadway extending from ninth approval for under the EAA. Line north of the CN and CP rail crossings in Markham to Steeles Avenue in Toronto. The Description and Statement of The description should include roadway then becomes six lanes along Steeles the Rationale for the information on the location, attributes, Avenue to the Morningside Avenue extension east undertaking dimensions, emissions etc. of Tapscott Road. From Steeles Avenue, the s.6.1(2)(b)(i) The evaluation process should identify Morningside Avenue extension will be a four lane which is the preferred undertaking.
- 5 - EA Decision Making EAA, ToR and Work Plan Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA roadway and extend southernly to the existing terminus of the Morningside Avenue and McNicoll Avenue extension. This alternative was selected as the preferred undertaking after a detailed evaluation and analysis of all “alternative methods”.
The proposed undertaking was selected because it was the alternative that on balance had the most advantages and least disadvantages. The site ranked first in three of the four criteria groups that were assessed to be very important or important (natural environment, transportation, and cost).
The Region evaluated the “alternative methods” in a manner that is clear, traceable, and replicable.
The description of the proposed undertaking is provided in Section 7 and includes information on the location, characteristics, design, site features, operation, and environmental control measures of the site.
The description of the proposed undertaking demonstrates that it can adequately address the Region’s transportation needs. Next Steps and Additional ToR Outline any further commitments made by The Region has committed to consult with the Additional Commitments the proponent in the ToR. MNR, TRCA, and the RPA during the detailed Commitments design phase of the Rouge River valley crossings. The Region has expressed its commitment to ensure that any detailed design will be developed to encourage wildlife passage and public use, and that the Rouge Park is not partitioned by the proposed transportation infrastructure.
- 6 - EA Decision Making EAA, ToR and Work Plan Description and Characteristics Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA Additional Approvals Outline additional approval requirements. The Region has committed to obtain all other approvals Provide sufficient detail about the nature and regulatory permits that may be required. Section of the approval. 9.3 of the EA outlines the additional approvals that may be required to design and construct the proposed undertaking. These approvals include:
Municipal Building Permits for the Maintenance Facility; Toronto and Region Conservation Authority permits; Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) authorization Ministry of the Environment’s Section 53, Ontario Water Resources Act approval for the proposed storm sewers and stormwater management facilities; Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Protection Act approvals if required; Permits under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act approval; Any Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources approvals; and Land zoning requirements may be required in accordance with the Planning Act.
(The above list is not all inclusive and other approvals may be required as the project proceeds)
- 7 - APPENDIX B
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED DURING INITIAL COMMENT PERIOD
Copies are available in hard copy at the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Copies are available in hard copy at the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch TABLES
Table 1. Government Review Team Comment Summary Table
Proposal: Transportation Improvements, Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended EA Proponent: Regional Municipality of York
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Provincial Agencies Hydro One Networks Inc. In our initial review, we have Detailed comments noted. Hydro One The ministry is satisfied with the confirmed that Hydro One will be consulted during detailed response. Transmission facilities are located design and construction of the project within immediate vicinity of the to ensure that specific issues are proposed site in your study area. Please addressed. allow appropriate lead-time in your project schedule in the event that proposed development impacts Hydro One infrastructure which requires relocation or modifications, or needs an outage, that may not be readily available.
In planning, please note that developments should not reduce line clearances and limit access to our facilities at any time in the study area of your Proposal. Any construction activities must maintain the electrical clearance from the transmission line conductors as specified in the Ontario Health and Safety Act for the respective line voltage.
The integrity of the structure foundations must be maintained at all times, with no disturbance of the earth around the poles, guy wires and tower footings. There must not be any grading, excavating, filling or other
- 1 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status civil work close to the structures.
Note that existing rights of ways may have provisions for future lines or already contain secondary land uses (i.e. pipelines, water mains, parking, etc). Please take this into consideration in your planning.
Once details are known and it is established that your development will affect Hydro One facilities including the rights of way, please submit plans that detail your development and the affected Hydro One facilities to: Paul Dockrill.
Please note that the proponent will be responsible for costs associated with modification or relocation of Hydro One facilities, as well as any added costs that may be incurred due to increase efforts to maintain our facilities.
PowerStream Inc. The correct contact information is now Comment noted. Contact information The ministry is satisfied with the Doug Fairchild. Your records has been updated. response. currently show the PowerStream contact as Bob Braletic. Toronto and Region Conservation TRCA staff received the Notice of TRCA’s support in principle for the The ministry is satisfied with the Authority (TRCA) Completion and Final Environmental project is appreciated. Agency response. Assessment (EA) Amendment Report comments have been noted and will be for the above noted project on July 26, addressed during the detailed design 2011. and TRCA permit submission phase of the project. Section 9.3 of the Staff has completed its review of the amended EA identifies TRCA permit EA and has no objection in principle to requirements as part of “Ongoing the preferred alternative. Staff provides consultation and Post EA Approvals”.
- 2 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status the following information related to detail design.
Staff notes that the fisheries timing windows are not consistent in the document. In accordance with the new Rouge River Watershed Fisheries Management Plan, the fisheries timing window is July 1 to September 15 for all watercourses within the study area. As such, when this project moves to detailed design it is imperative that the correct fisheries timing windows are reflected in the design brief and subsequent permit submissions.
Ontario Regulation 166/06 Requirements Permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are required from this office prior to project construction. To facilitate a timely review process of the permit application(s), TRCA staff requests that:
1. The proponent or their consultant prepare a Detailed Design Brief at the outset of the design process, summarizing all detailed design commitments to TRCA made during the EA process. The Detailed Design Brief should be provided to TRCA for review and confirmation at the outset of the detailed design process. The brief should include, but not be limited to: a. an aerial photo indicating the study area, regulated area, existing
- 3 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status conditions and preferred solution/design; b. text indicating the preferred alternative solution/design; c. a reference list of alternative solutions and designs considered; d. confirmation of all TRCA Property requirements; e. a synopsis of all TRCA requirements and technical commitments from the EA document.
It is intended that the Detailed Design Brief will clearly articulate commitments made during the EA in order to facilitate a 90% permit submission to TRCA. During the review of the first detailed design submission, TRCA staff will then be able to review all required studies, reports or plans, confirm any additional study requirements, and advise of required revisions to the submitted materials. Ideally, the completion of the Detailed Design Brief will result in a more timely and streamlined permit approval process for this project.
2. The proponent and their consultants refer to the checklists and guidelines provided in the appendices of the TRCA Planning and Development Procedural Manual. These can be found on our website, at www.trca.ca.
3. The proponent provide a cover letter to the permit application(s), detailing
- 4 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status that they have: • reviewed the submission; • confirmed that proponent and TRCA objectives have been met; • confirmed that TRCA areas of concern have been spoken to and that TRCA comments have been responded to; and • confirmed that the studies, reports and plans are consistent and accurate.
4. The proponent submits only complete permit application (s). An application is considered complete when it includes a: a. permit application cover letter, as detailed above; b. copy of the approved Detailed Design Brief c. 90 % Detailed Design materials, including all studies, reports and plans that were outlined in the Detailed Design Brief; d. proponent-signed copy of the permit application; e. proponent-signed verification of land ownership, or land owner authorization; f. TRCA review fee, as per the schedule provided on our website at www.trca.ca.
5. Please ensure that the following is included in the detailed design submission: a. appropriate base plans with correct information and detail; b. application of TRCA guidelines, as
- 5 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status found on the TRCA website in the Planning and Development Manual - Checklists and Guidelines sections available on the TRCA website at www.trca.ca; c. project phasing constraints (ie., location of construction areas); d. construction staging (ie., sequence of construction activities); e. construction access and storage; f. construction feasibility (ie., access and techniques); g. site level water management (ie., the site management of ground and surface water flows and stormwater management).
Note that a copy of the Service Delivery Standards and requirements for easements on TRCA property, which may also include the need for an Archaeological Assessment, is available on the TRCA website at www.trca.on.ca. Ministry of Tourism and Culture The MTC has reviewed the above Comments noted. York Region will The ministry is satisfied with the (MTC) mentioned report and has the following continue to consult with the MTC as response. Culture Services Unit, comments: the project moves through the design Programs and Services Branch and construction phases. As noted in Our records indicate that our Ministry Section 8.2.2, a Stage 2 provided comments on the Draft of this Archaeological assessment will be report on January 14, 2011. The final conducted during the design phase for report appears to have addressed our all undisturbed areas. A copy of the previous concerns and comments. Stage 2 and any subsequent The report indicates the following: Archaeological assessment reports • The preferred alternative is will be provided to the MTC. C2; • Under Section 8.2.1 no built In addition, a protocol will be in place heritage features would be removed as during construction to ensure proper
- 6 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status a result of the undertaking; and notification of affected agencies and • Under Section 8.2.2 the entire First Nations should archaeological study area is considered to have high resources be encountered. potential for archaeological finds, and further archaeological assessments The MTC’s recommendation to would be undertaken. address Stage 2 Archaeological assessment requirements through a In regard to archaeology, our records condition of EA approval is indicate that our Ministry has reviewed reasonable. and accepted the Stage 1 archaeological assessment report. However, the MTC acceptance letter, dated August 27, 2008, supported the recommendation for further archaeology assessment work (Stage 2) in certain areas. We acknowledge your commitment to carry out further archaeological assessment as necessary, and would recommend that this be addressed through a condition of approval of this EA. Niagara Escarpment Commission This area is outside the Niagara Comment noted. York Region The ministry is satisfied with the (NEC) Escarpment Plan. Therefore, the NEC circulated a copy of the amended EA response. has no comment on this study, and no to all Government Agencies that further correspondence is required on would potentially have an interest in this matter. this study. In addition, York Region sent a copy of the notice of submission to all other agencies on the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Government Review Team Master Distribution List, including the Niagara Escarpment Commission, for their information and in the event that these agencies might have had an interest that was unforeseen.
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Voicemail: No interest, her region only Comment noted. MTO Central North Bay goes as far South as Gravenhurst. Region was consulted on the amended
- 7 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Suggested we consult Planning and EA. No comments were submitted by Design in Central Region. MTO Central Region during the public and agency review of the amended EA.
MOE Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch 1) Section 3.3.1 (pg 3-36) of the 1) TTS reports can be accessed The ministry is satisfied with the amended EA makes reference to a through the Data Management Group response; however, the ministry is Transportation Tomorrow Survey of the University of Toronto at concerned that the undertaking may (TTS). The findings presented in the www.dmg.utoronto.ca/reports/ttsrepor not be constructed in its entirety study were used to substantiate some ts.html. should a cost sharing and of the conclusions regarding the impact implementation agreement not be of the updates to the population and The TTS is a comprehensive travel formed with Torornot. employment forecasts from the survey conducted in the Greater original EA. A copy of the study or Toronto and Hamilton Area once information on where it may be found every five years. The TTS is on-line should be provided to the undertaken jointly by the agencies ministry. represented on the Transportation Information Steering Committee 2) Section 3.3.5 (pg 3-44) of the (TISC). The Committee was amended EA discusses the additional established in 1977 for the purpose of traffic modelling that was carried out setting common transportation data as part of the EA amendment process. collection standards and coordinating A review of the analysis has noted that data collection and dissemination data the Regional Municipality of York between the member agencies. Transportation Improvements in the Membership of the committee Donald Cousens Parkway/Morningside includes Cities of Toronto and Link Corridor South of Highway 407 Hamilton, the Regional Municipalities Amendment to the EA Work Plan, of Durham, Halton, Peel and York, dated January 2009, identified that GO Transit, the Toronto Transit York would carry out a detailed micra- Commission and the Ontario MTO. Simulation analysis to assess the traffic operational characteristics of each of 2) As described in Section 3.3.5, the alternative alignments from the additional traffic modelling was original EA. It would appear that carried out as part of the EA during the EA amendment process, amendment process to assess the York determined that a broader feasibility of addressing transportation evaluation of a "continuous" versus a needs by the various alignment
- 8 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status "discontinuous" alignment would be alternatives. The original 2005 EAR better suited in comparing alternative included traffic analysis at a macro- alignments. level of detail (i.e. screenlines) using EMME2 travel demand forecasts. The Clarification is requested to explain additional modelling carried out as why, from a transportation modeling part of the amended EA utilized perspective, the ability of traffic micro-simulation, reflecting a more modeling involving a micro-simulation detailed assessment of traffic to identify the traffic operational movements in this corridor and characteristics of each of the intersection operations, which were alternative alignments was determined not included in the original macro- to be limited. Consideration should be level traffic analysis. given to providing a more detailed explanation as to how the limitations Notwithstanding the more detailed of a micro-simulation analysis would nature of micro-simulation analysis, affect the accuracy of the traffic the analysis can only distinguish modeling findings and the ability of traffic operational differences between York to reasonably compare the alternatives when there are substantive operational characteristics of each of differences in functional the alternative alignments identified in characteristics. In the case of the the amended EA with one another. discontinuous alternatives (C1 and C2), the difference between a 4-lane 3) Section 4.3.8.2 (pg 4-43) of the and 6-lane cross section on Steeles amended EA makes reference to a Avenue represents a substantive letter received by York from the difference in the functional Toronto Region Conservation characteristics between C1 and C2, Authority (TRCA) and dated August and therefore each was represented by 9,2010. In the letter, TRCA staff a separate micro-simulation scenario. confirm that the Rouge River, in the vicinity of Steeles Avenue, is not In the case of the continuous Redside Dace habitat. The letter was alignment alternatives (A1, A2, A3a, not included in the amended EA A3b, A4a, A3b, A5 and A6), the documentation. A copy of the letter differences between the alternatives should be provided to the ministry. were not considered sufficient to represent functionally different 4) Section 6.1 (pg 6-6) of the amended scenarios in the micro-simulation EA discusses the development of the analysis. Therefore, the continuous preliminary alternative alignments that alignment alternatives were grouped
- 9 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status will be carried forward in the into a single functional scenario for evaluation and assessment of the purpose of traffic micro- 'alternative methods'. It is not readily simulation. apparent as to whether or not the updates to the existing transportation The results of the assessment are network and the existing conditions of therefore similar for all of the the EA Study Area were taken into continuous alignment alternatives in consideration and reviewed in Table 6-1, Alternative Alignment determining if the effectiveness and Analysis, under Grouping – feasibility of each of the alternative Transportation, Factor – Level of alignments from the original EA Service. The operational performance remained unchanged. for the continuous alignment alternatives was determined to be level Clarification is required to explain of service C (acceptable traffic whether or not the updates to the operating conditions). The most transportation network and the existing relevant conclusion reached from the conditions of the EA Study Area have additional traffic analysis conducted had an impact on the design and during the amendment to the EA is feasibility of each 'alternative method' that the level of service for the being carried forward for evaluation in discontinuous alternatives was found the amended EA. to be level of service C, and therefore, the discontinuous alternatives ranked 5) Section 6.4 (pg 6-36) of the better under the transportation amended EA describes that in selecting grouping compared to their original a preferred 'alternative method' the EA ranking under this grouping. potential effects of each alternative Combining the continuous alignment alignment and the mitigation measures alternatives into a single micro- to address them will be identified. A simulation scenario did not affect the determination of "net effects" (I.e. the Region’s ability to reasonably effects of an alternative with mitigation compare the traffic performance of measures implemented) would also be each of the alternative alignments and considered in the selection of a did not affect the overall conclusions preferred 'alternative method'. reached regarding the alternatives evaluation under the transportation Clarification is requested to explain grouping. how the impacts and mitigation measures for each alignment were considered in the evaluation and 3) A copy of the TRCA
- 10 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status comparison of the 'alternative methods' correspondence dated August 9, 2010 of carrying out the undertaking. and the project team’s January 5, 2011 response is provided in the amended 6) Section 6.5.9 (pg 6-55) of the EA at the end of Appendix B – Public amended EA notes that there have Consultation. The August 9, 2010 been improvements in the correspondence from TRCA indicates transportation network since the the following “Please note that the submission of the original EA. In main Rouge River is not currently particular, a number of roadways have classified as redside dace habitat in been or are being constructed as part of this location.” the Box Grove build out. Clarification is requested to explain why each of the 4) With regard to the feasibility of alternative alignments being each of the alignment alternatives, considered start at the 407 and Donald Section 6-2 (pg. 6-13) identifies the Cousens Parkway interchange and not following: at the terminus of the town arterial “It should be noted, however, that road constructed or being constructed since EAR 2005, Alternative A6 (as as part of the build out of the Box shown in Exhibit 6-4) is no longer Grove development. viable because development of a subdivision on the east side of the CP 7) Section 7.1.1 (pg 7-6) of the rail tracks in the Morningside Heights amended EA identifies that the Community has proceeded and the construction of new southwest and required buffer lands no longer exist. southeast ramps to Highway 407 are The construction planners assumed part of the undertaking for which that the alignment utilizing the buffer approval is being sought. Clarification reserve would not be implemented, as is required to explain whether or not Alternative A6 was not identified as the southeast and southwest ramps, the Recommended Alignment in EAR from the 407 to the Donald Cousens 2005. Houses have been constructed Parkway, were considered in the backing onto the CP railway (i.e., the evaluation and assessment of buffer which allow for a possible alternatives. corridor for the extension of Morningside Avenue to Steeles 8) Section 8.3 (pg 8·4) of the amended Avenue is no longer available). This EA makes reference to a number of alignment alternative, however, is still Environmental Protection Plans. being carried forward in the update of However, there is no explanation of the analysis and evaluation of each plan, why they were prepared, alternatives since Section 3.3.2 of the
- 11 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status what purpose they serve and what Work Plan for the EA Amendment guidance was followed in developing stated that “a comparative assessment the mitigation measures associated will be carried out between each of the with the preferred undertaking. nine alternatives identified in the Morningside Link EAR 2005 (namely, The ministry requests that York Alternatives A1, A2, A3a, A3b, A4a, provide additional information on each A4b, A5, and A6)” Environmental Protection Plan that would help to explain the purpose of With regard to the effectiveness of the plan and the mitigation measures each of the alternative alignments, this included in the plan that will be used to is addressed in Section 6.5 Alternative address the potential impacts of the Analysis and Section 6.6 Alternative preferred undertaking. It is also Evaluation under transportation requested that York provide a copy of grouping of factors. The construction each plan to the ministry or direction of the Box Grove Bypass and the on how the plans can be accessed on Town Arterial Road was also included line. as an existing condition in the Do Nothing scenario described in Section 3.2.1.
Updates to the existing transportation network and the existing conditions of the study area were taken into consideration and reviewed in determining if the effectiveness and feasibility of the alternative alignments had changed from the original EA.
5) Section 6.6 includes the following wording: “Evaluation Methodology The formal evaluation of the alternatives for EAR 2005 was carried out by the Project Team based on the analysis table that was developed. The evaluation procedure was carried out as follows:
- 12 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status
1. The Project Team compared the factors for each alternative and assigned 10 points to the best alternative(s) for each of the individual factors. All other alternatives received 0-10 points depending on how they compared with the best alternative for that factor. This process was used not as a quantitative method of evaluation, but as a way to systematically compare the alternatives for each factor.
2. The numerical evaluation was used to focus Project Team members on the relative importance of the effects. It should be noted that the evaluation considered only the factors and did not include an overall scoring based on a rating. The reasons for the preference of a particular alternative for each of the factors were discussed and assessed amongst the Project Team and the expertise of the Project Team was used to identify a preferred alternative within a grouping.
3. The results for each of the groupings and the preferences for each were discussed further amongst the Project Team to identify the preferred alternative. The review of the alternatives included an understanding of the technical effects of the alternatives and the ability to mitigate concerns that have been identified by the Technical Advisory Committee,
- 13 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Technical Agencies and the Public.
6) During the EA Amendment process, the Project Team re-evaluated the alternatives based on updated information as documented in the analysis table (Table 6-1).”
The preliminary design of each of the alternative methods described in Section 6.3 inherently include mitigation measures for potential environmental effects through use of design standards and best practices.
Section 6.3.9 (pg 6-35) identifies the following: “The alignment of the Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road is common to the broader inter-regional corridor being considered in this Study. This suggests that the Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road will be located in and be linked into the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link corridor regardless of which alternative is identified as Recommended Alignment. From a corridor planning perspective, this conclusion addresses the issue described in Section 6.1.4 g) of the Box Grove Secondary Plan (i.e. should the outcome of the Study utilize the right-of-way of the Town Arterial Road and the EA Amendment be approved, then it may be transferred to York Region and become a Regional Arterial Road
- 14 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status without an Amendment to the Secondary Plan) and provides the rationale for the Town Arterial Road to become a Regional Road.”
The Box Grove Bypass and the Town Arterial Road were planned and constructed to address separate transportation needs in the area. From a corridor planning perspective, the amended EA sought to confirm (and did conclude) that these roads can be utilized to address the broader needs identified for the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link corridor.
7) The alternative methods included in the analysis and evaluation presented in Sections 6.5 and 6.6 are depicted in Exhibits 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 6- 13, 6-14, 6-15a and 6-15b and all include the proposed SE and SW ramps to Highway 407. The SE and SW ramps from the Donald Cousens Parkway to Highway 407 were considered in the evaluation and assessment of alternatives.
8) Section 8.3 includes the following wording which clarifies the Ministry’s comment: “This section focuses on the natural environmental protection measures incorporated into the preliminary design and the commitments to further action during detailed design, construction and operation of the
- 15 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Undertaking. For each natural environmental factor, impact issues and concerns are identified, mitigation strategies are provided, and residual effects are considered. A tabular summary has been developed and is provided in Appendix C. Refer to Tables C.3 through C.8.
A series of Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) guideline sheets have also been prepared in Appendix C (Appendix C.7). The EPP sheets are provided to illustrate measures that may be employed during subsequent stages of the Undertaking. Each EPP sheet provides a description of the project activity, identifies associated environmental concerns, and details protection measures and other responsibilities (including contingency plans). The EPPs will provide guidance for the development of mitigation instructions in construction drawings and specifications, but are not intended to replace existing proven construction practices, such as the well-established Ontario Provincial Standards and Specifications (OPSS). These standards and specifications may be amended through project- specific special provisions. The EPP fact sheets are provided in Appendix C (Appendix C.7).
9) Mitigation measures will be detailed on the Contract Drawings and associated text that will be developed
- 16 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status at Detailed Design. Mitigation specifications will be based on current practices utilized by York Region and the City of Toronto, applicable OPSS and guidance from the EPP sheets provided in Appendix C. The OPSS specifications are well known and recognized in the construction industry.
Ministry of the Environment 1) Ambient Air Background Data 1) Use of the average 90th percentile The ministry is satisfied with the Central Region office Clarification is required on why the monitoring data from the five (5) most response. average 90th percentile background recent years of data from concentration was used for all representative MOE monitoring parameters instead of the maximum stations is consistent with the 90th percentile of the 5 years approach SENES has taken for all monitoring data. previous transportation studies reviewed and accepted by the MOE. 2) Section 2.4- Background For this specific Environmental Concentrations, refers to the years Assessment, use of the maximum 90th 2005-2009 for the 90th percentile percentile for background contaminant background concentrations, whereas concentrations would not change the the tables in Section 2.3 refer to the conclusions of the Air Quality Impact years 2006-2010 for the ambient Assessment (AQIA); there would be monitoring data. This discrepancy no predicted exceedances of should be corrected or explained. applicable criteria at any identified sensitive receptor location. 3) Vehicle Emissions Estimate Clarification is required to explain why 2) Background Concentrations are 50 and 60 kilometre/hour speeds were based on the MOE Monitoring Station the only speeds assessed in the AQA data from the years 2006-2010, as report since there is a highway present presented in Tables 2.5 to 2.7 in the in the study area which has posted Report. A typo was made in Section driving speeds in excess of these 2.4 – Background Concentrations, speeds. which should refer to the years 2006- 2010.
3) There are no highways within the
- 17 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status project study area identified in Figure 1.1 of SENES’ AQIA Report. It should be noted that Highway 407 is approximately 2 km north of the identified study area. Traffic data and posted speed limits for all major roads within the study area were provided by McCormick Rankin Corporation.
Local Agencies Rouge Park Rouge Park supports the preferred Rouge Park’s support for the project is The ministry is satisfied with the alignment (C2) and is satisfied with the noted and appreciated. Rouge Park response. conceptual design described in this will be consulted during detailed report. All outstanding concerns have design and construction of the project been addressed in consultation with to ensure specific issues are addressed. staff of York. Rouge Park staff requests involvement in detailed design of this project as it proceeds.
City of Toronto City of Toronto staff have reviewed 1) Comment noted with regard to The ministry is satisfied with the the Amended EA report. In general, we existing cycling infrastructure beyond response. are satisfied with the outcome, in that the limits of the proposed City Council took a position in Undertaking. As noted in the opposition to the original alignment comment, the preliminary design of recommended by York Region Council the proposed Undertaking identified in and the current recommendation is to the amended EA includes provisions follow the City's preferred route. We for cycling along the entire acknowledge this amended recommended alignment, which has recommendation, as shown in Exhibit been developed in consultation with E-5. the City of Toronto (for improvements along Steeles Avenue and the Specific transportation-related items in Morningside Avenue Extension) and the EA report that came to our in accordance with York Region’s attention include: Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan (for improvements along 9th Line). 1) Section 4.5, p. 4-71 makes no mention of either Toronto's or York's 2)The latest detailed update on the cycling infrastructure plans or the Transit City Plan which could be
- 18 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status presence of a multi-use path on located on the Toronto and TTC Morningside south of Staines and bike websites includes a July 14, 2010 TTC lanes on Finch east of Neilson. Given report (link as follows): that the recommended plan included http://www3.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/C the extension of the multiuse path on ommission_reports_and_information/ Morningside and Steeles, and the Commission_meetings/2010/July_14_ inclusion of bike lanes on the Parkway 2010/Supplementary_Reports/Transit_ in York, it would have been useful to City_Update.pdf have had those plans grounded in existing conditions and plans. In addition, the following information was provided on the TTC website: 2) Exhibit 4-13 and "Transit City" “Mayor Ford has requested that the description on p. 4-80 are outdated and TTC develop a new transit plan do not reflect current City of Toronto consistent with his platform. Work on Rapid Transit plans. a new plan is underway.”
3) Section 7.3.1, p. 7-9 describes York Region recognizes that there Steeles Avenue as being four lanes east may be changes to the Transit City of Ninth Line and west of Plan as described in the amended EA, Morningside. Since widening Steeles but at this time, an alternative plan has east of Ninth Line is not on the current not been approved by Toronto City capital program, the design plans Council. and description should all reflect Steeles Avenue as remaining at two 3) The City of Toronto completed a lanes east of Ninth Line, with the Class EA in 1992 to widen Steeles potential to expand to four lanes if and Avenue to a 4-lane cross section from when the City decides to do so. A McCowan Road to the Durham similar comment applies to Steeles Region boundary. The widening from Avenue between east of Markham McCowan Road to Markham Road Road and west of Morningside has previously been constructed. The Avenue, which should be shown as base case widening of Steeles Avenue two lanes at present with potential for to 4 lanes from east of Markham Road expansion to four lanes. to west of the Durham boundary has been assumed in the development of 4) Plates 1 -5: legend shows "bike the proposed Underaking identified in lane" when it is more appropriately the amended EA (which includes a described as "multi-use path". Actual widening of Steeles Avenue to 6 lanes on-road bike lanes are shown on Plates from 9th Line to the Morningside
- 19 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status 6 and 7. Avenue Extension). In consultation with staff from Toronto 5) Plates 3 and 5: as above, these show Transportation Planning, it was Steeles widening to four lanes to the determined that implementation of east and west of the subject segment. Steeles Avenue improvements that The plans should show a transition to incorporate the Undertakings from two lanes, with the potential to widen both Toronto’s 1992 Class EA and the to four lanes in the future. amended EA for the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link 6) Plates 4 and 6: It would be was preferred. The Region recognizes useful to show the rail level that implementation of improvements crossing more clearly (i.e. crossing to Steeles Avenue is subject to a gates, stop bar, rail line shown decision by the City of Toronto, and across the road) York Region will work with Toronto as described in Section 7.3.11 to 7) Plate 5: Since the City does not plan develop a cost sharing and to widen Steeles Avenue east of Ninth implementation agreement post EA Line to more than two lanes eastbound approval. (from its one lane currently), City staff suggest showing a double eastbound 4) Clarification related to “multi-use left turn at Ninth Line comprised of a path” verses "bike lane" terminology developed left turn lane along with the is noted. Detailed design drawings median lane (i.e. identical to the will reflect “multi-use path” proposed westbound treatment on terminology. Steeles Avenue at Morningside Drive) alongside two eastbound through lanes. 5) See discussion above under item Initially, the second through lane 12. would be dropped east of the intersection, to match to existing. This 6) Comment noted and will be reduction in the number of eastbound incorporated into the detailed design lanes at the intersection approach drawings. would allow a reduction in size of the Rouge River structure. 7) Detailed comment noted. Final lane configuration at the intersection 8) Also on Plate 5, since the traffic will be developed during detailed projections to 2031 for the design, in consultation with the City of southbound-to-eastbound movement at Toronto. the Ninth Line / Steeles Avenue
- 20 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status intersection are no more than 160/h 8)Detailed comment noted. Final lane (per Ex. 321) and the southbound left configuration at the intersection will turn is unopposed, it is questionable be refined during detailed design, in why a double left turn lane is needed. consultation with the City of Toronto. York Region should consider having southbound Ninth Line simply split 9) The dimensions identified in into a single left and a single Section 7.3.4.2.2, p. 7-22 reflect the (channelized) right turn lane, thereby cross section on Exhibit 7-6 simplifying operations and reducing (Structural General Arrangement, the size of the intersection. Morningside tributary Crossing) which differs sightly from the typical 9) Section 7.3.4.2.2, p. 7-22: the cross section shown in Exhibit 7-2a proposed sidewalk, lane, and path (which is intended to reflect a mid- widths for the Steeles Avenue block condition). Transition between structure over the Rouge River are the on and off structure cross sectional inconsistent with the dimensions dimensions will be refined during shown in Exhibit 7-2a. They should detailed design, in consultation with be made consistent or the the City of Toronto. differences explained and rationalized. 10) Comment noted and appreciated.
10) The City of Toronto recognizes the considerable effort York Region has gone to in undertaking and finalizing this EA study, and appreciates York's willingness to work with and accommodate City of Toronto principles, policies, and requirements. We look forward to continuing discussions with York Region regarding cost-sharing for constructing this new road connection and to resolve outstanding differences on the Steeles Avenue boundary road agreement. We also intend to work with York Region through the detail design stage to resolve any technical issues noted above.
- 21 -
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status
Toronto District School Board We are satisfied with the EA and have Comment noted. Anyone who no comments, but we wish to be kept provided comments during the public informed about the process and review of the EA will be notified by progress in approvals. MOE when the EA Review is published and when a final decision is rendered by the Minister. York Catholic District School Board Please be advised that board staff has Comment noted. Anyone who The ministry is satisfied with the Catholic Education Centre reviewed the report and have no provided comments during the public response. concerns or comments to offer at this review of the EA will be notified by time. MOE when the EA Review is published and when a final decision is The Board requests that it continue to rendered by the Minister. be circulated any information pertaining to the EA.
- 22 - Table 2. Public Comment Summary Table
Proposal: Transportation Improvements, Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended EA Proponent: Regional Municipality of York
Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Member of the Public Requested the amended EA report be The direct link to the amended EA The ministry is satisfied with the sent to as the person could not locate report on the project website response. it on the york.ca website. (www.DCPtoMorningsideLink.ca) was sent in response to the e-mail request. The link is also available through the Region’s website at www.york.ca under News and Information. Citizen Scientists (NGO) We have reviewed the amended EA Comments noted. Citizen Scientists The ministry is satisfied with the document and have concerns about (NGO) will be included on the public response. the specifics of the Morningside mailing list for this project. Creek crossing. We fundamentally have concerns about the overall Impacts to the natural environment project with the resulting increased have been considered extensively in traffic loads that will be brought into the development and evaluation of the Rouge Valley System, which will alternatives (Alternatives to the result in increased pressures and Undertaking, Chapter 5 and stresses on local flora and fauna. Alternative Methods of Carrying out These effects will not be fully the Undertaking, Chapter 6) as well as mitigated and will contribute to the in the detailed development of the loss of ecological integrity to the Undertaking (Chapter 7, Features of larger system. However, we the Preferred Undertaking) and understand the limitations of the Chapter 8, Environmental Effects, project. Mitigating Measures and Commitments to Further Work. While the planned mitigation for the Morningside Creek crossing as stated The Toronto and Region Conservation in the document is reasonable, the Authority (TRCA), Ministry of troubles always manifest themselves Natural Resources (MNR) and Rouge on the ground through contractor Park have been involved throughout implementation (often a lack of the EA to ensure that the project proper implementation). The Redside protects and enhances, where Dace population in Morningside possible, the natural environment.
- 1 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Creek is critically endangered locally, Their comments on the final amended and teeters on the edge of extirpation. EA are documented in this table and The caution is that changes to the include support for the recommended culvert at the Morningside Creek undertaking. In January 2010, York crossing won't likely be beneficial to Region met with the TRCA, MNR the species if the cross-sectional area and Rouge Park to refine the design of increases. In urban environments the tributary crossings, including the where the hydrology is fundamentally Morningside Tributary (see Table 2- altered, undersized culverts seem to 2). protect and buffer the last remaining redside dace populations. Changing Documentation related to the hydrology will likely work to Morningside Tributary is included in eliminate the last remaining redside EA Section 7.3.4.2 (Features of the dace habitat which is in close Preferred Undertaking, Structures, proximity to this road crossing. Morningside Tributary) and 8.3.1.3 Additionally, the specific riffle and (Environmental Effects, Mitigation pool habitat that is to be re-created to Measures and Commitments to support this species is very tricky to Further Work, Natural Environment, design, and simply employing a Natural Environmental Designations, "natural channel" design is not Morningside Tributary). sufficient. There are very specific Documentation related to the riffle and pool sequences that need to Morningside Tributary (including be recreated in order to provide this discussion of Redside Dace) is also species suitable habitat for their included in Section 4.3.8.1 (Aquatic ultimate survival. Features Overview), 4.3.8.2 (Aquatic Species of Conservation Concern), We think that there needs to be a pre- 4.3.8.3 (Watershed Management assessment of the species habitat and Objectives), and Appendix C, Natural population numbers to ensure that the Environment Report, Ecoplans proposal does not further harm the Limited, May 2011, Sections 4.1, 5.1 species. This pre and post assessment and 6.1. work should be specifically tied to the ESA permit. We also formally request The requirement for post EA that Jeff McNeice a member of approvals are identified in Section 9.3 redside dace recovery team, an and include TRCA permits under employee with York Region that Ontario Regulation 166/06 and MNR understands the species very well permit requirements under the should be assigned to supervise and Endangered Species Act. Detailed monitor this project. Agency requirements will be identified through the permit process,
- 2 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status We were not involved in the initial and York Region will comply with all EA work but please include us on the conditions of permit approvals. contact list for any subsequent updates.
Member of the Public We have seen the map for the new Detailed rationale for selection of the The ministry is satisfied with the Donald Cousen Parkway extension to preferred alignment is presented in response. Morning side. The Markham East Section 6.5 (Alternative Methods of residents don’t have any direct way to Carrying out the Undertaking, reach 401 now. Now, we are taking Alternative Analysis) and Section 6.6 either Ressor/Meadowvale Rd or (Alternative Methods of Carrying out Staines/Markham Rd. to get to 401. the Undertaking, Alternative We were hoping that after Donald Evaluation). Cousens Parkway (DCP) is finished, we will have a faster way to 401. However, the map looks like it is not a straight road. Why it has to merge with Steeles road? It does not make any sense. Why is DCP not parallel to the CP Rail as it supposed to be? If budget is the problem, finish the extension slowly, taking few more years. It is better to do something nicely than fast. Colliers International I am looking to gain as much The City of Toronto has jurisdiction The ministry is satisfied with the information as possible as to what the over development approvals along the response. effects of this road extension would south side of Steeles Avenue and any have on some of the surrounding specific conditions of approval. vacant land parcels. In particular, the 100 acre site owned by Manulife that The easterly limit of the proposed is on the south side of Steeles, just Undertaking is shown on Plate 3 east of Markham Road. I had spoken (Chapter 7) and includes the proposed to someone from Markham’s planning property envelope associated with the department who had indicated to me Undertaking. The easterly limit of the that the only real concerns would be proposed Undertaking does not extend the right of ways needed in order to to Markham Road. The Region has make the appropriate expansions. requested the specific limits of the Would you be able to confirm the Manulife site in order to identified actual distances needed on each side? property impacts, if any, associated I am assuming no expropriation is with the EA Undertaking.
- 3 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status necessary? Is there is any other general information that could potentially affect this parcel? Stantec Area Resident - lives close to The direct link to the amended EA The ministry is satisfied with the Morningside Avenue and Oasis Blvd report on the project website response. intersection and wanted to review the (www.DCPtoMorningsideLink.ca) amended EA but couldn’t find it was sent in response to the e-mail online. Requested assistance in request. retrieving the EA.
Member of the Public I do not have the time or the energy to Comment noted. A brief response The ministry is satisfied with the sift through and read these was provided that described the response. documents. I live on Salamander proposed Undertaking. Street. In a few words, just tell me how is it going to affect me? Member of the Public East Markham resident. Improvements to the Steeles Avenue The ministry is satisfied with the th th 9 line and Steeles Avenue: “terrible and 9 Line intersection, including response. turning into either road, one lane, very turning lanes and traffic signals, are rough driving, un-policed territory, included as part of the proposed perhaps requires traffic lights and I Undertaking. Installation of interim suspect an extra lane. Existing safety traffic signals at this intersection has concerns need to be invested been agreed to in principle by the City especially during rush hour.” of Toronto. Member of the Public Would like name/address taken off Public mailing list has been updated. The ministry is satisfied with the the list and if there is an issue to call response. her back. Member of the Public I am writing in regards to Steeles Comments regarding congestion on The ministry is satisfied with the Avenue and how poorly the road Steeles Avenue are acknowledged. response. conditions are, how poorly the The City of Toronto completed a class lighting is, and the fact that Steeles is EA in 1992 to widen Steeles Avenue a major artery for both the City of to a 4-lane cross section to the Toronto, York and Durham Regions. I Durham Region boundary. Although have been in contact with councillors, the existing demand on Steeles regional councillors and the deputy Avenue warrants immediate mayor as well as Toronto councillors. improvement, the City of Toronto has not identified timing for proposed
- 4 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status I am not sure if the councillors are infrastructure improvements. passing the buck on me or if they really do care for the heavy traffic The proposed Undertaking (in the issues regarding Steeles avenue and Donald Cousens Parkway to surrounding roads of the Markham Morningside Avenue Link EA) has and Steeles area. been developed to address existing and future transportation needs across Below I have attached an email chain the York/Toronto boundary area, and with city councillors. What must be includes improvements to Steeles done to get this problem fixed. Avenue. The proposed Undertaking is an essential piece in the arterial I own an industrial unit and I am on road network. As noted in the the board there also. My unit is comment (left), there is already severe located around the Markham rd and traffic congestion in the area, which McNicoll area. There is one problem will only become more severe without that needs attention. I have a major significant investment in the area issue regarding Steeles Avenue east of transportation network. York Region Markham Road. The traffic is is working with stakeholders to completely atrocious. Steeles Avenue expedite approval of the amended EA needs to be opened up to 2 lanes each and implement the proposed way with a middle turning lane. The Undertaking. traffic in the morning and the afternoon going home needs to improve. With new homes being built on the south side of Steeles and the north side, and traffic coming in from York and Durham Region this road needs attention immediately. Steeles Avenue is a major artery and needs the space to accommodate the growth of the area. There have been new commercial and industrial units built in the Markham/Steeles area. They need roads that can allow consumers to get to their businesses. The Lowes and Walmart bring in a tremendous amount of traffic as well. When will Steeles Avenue be widened?
- 5 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Member of the Public I am a resident of the Box Grove Section 3.3.5 (Additional Traffic community that will be directly Modelling) considered two affected by these proposed changes. I alternatives for the discontinuous would like to voice some concerns I alignment. One of the alternatives have regarding the project. included a 4 lane section and the other a 6 lane section on Steeles Avenue. Currently, Steeles Avenue consists of The need for a 6 lane cross section on two lanes east of Markham Road, Steeles Avenue between 9th Line and which merge into one lane that goes the Morningside Avenue Extension from Tapscott Road till about Beare was demonstrated through the traffic Road, which then becomes two lanes analysis and documented in Section again. I do not know if you are 3.4 (Conclusion). See also Section familiar with the traffic flow during 6.3.8 (Alternative C2). The proposed rush hour on Steeles Avenue. There is Undertaking includes turning lanes at a backup that occurs from east of all intersections. Beare Road during the morning rush hour and west of Markham Road until The proposed Undertaking has been Tapscott Road during the evening developed to address existing and session. This is not a coincidence, as future transportation needs across the the backups occur right where the lane York/Toronto boundary area, and merging occurs. The proper thing to includes improvements to 9th Line do is to widen Steeles Avenue into a 4 (widening to 4 lanes from Steeles lane roadway, and not a 6 lane Avenue to the south limit of Box roadway according to the proposal. Grove). The proposed Undertaking is You have to understand that 4 lanes an essential piece in the arterial road allows for continuity, whereas 6 lanes network. As noted in the comment creates flow only until a point (left), there is already traffic (specifically the merge point). As I'm congestion in the area, which will suggesting, make Steeles Avenue a 4 only become more pronounced lane roadway, and insert designated without significant investment in the turning lanes. For example, a left area transportation network. York hand turn lane for those who wish to Region is working with stakeholders turn onto 9th Line/Donald Cousens to expedite approval of the amended from Steeles Avenue. EA and implement the proposed Undertaking. This line of thought brings me to my next point. Right now, the Donald Riverwalk Drive intersects the Box Cousens is being extended from 14th Grove Bypass (formerly the 9th Line Avenue around to 9th line. Currently, Bypass) 170 m west of the planned as you head west on 9th Line, It Donald Cousens Parkway corridor.
- 6 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status becomes a one lane street as it bends The locations of local and collector south towards Steeles Avenue. I don't roads within the Box Grove Planning suppose you have experienced the Area were established through plans backup In the mornings at this point, of subdivision. Spacing from but It is pretty bad. Again, traffic Riverwalk Drive to the intersection of backs up where the merge occurs the Box Grove Bypass and the from two to one lane on 9th Line. planned Donald Cousens Parkway When you consider that the corridor is less than the desired completion of the Donald Cousens minimum traffic signal spacing (250 will be introducing more traffic onto to 300 m along Regional roads). 9th Line, morning rush hour is going Installation of traffic signals along the to be hell. I would like to know why Box Grove Bypass is subject to a 9th Line, from the point of the detailed warrant analysis by the merging lane down south to Steeles Region’s Traffic Operations Division. Avenue, was not widened into a 4 This localized traffic issue will be lane road before the Donald Cousens forwarded to the Region’s Traffic was extended to 9th Line. You are Operations Division for action as introducing more traffic onto a road needed. that cannot support It. Many of my neighbours have expressed the same Riverwalk Drive intersects 14th problem. This is traffic suicide. Avenue approximately 200 m east of the Box Grove Bypass and 600 m I am a part of the Neighbourhood west of the planned Donald Cousens Watch Community in the Box Grove Parkway corridor. The Region’s 10- area, specifically one of the co- Year Road Construction Program captains on my street. We have includes proposed improvements to expressed our concern for the safety 14th Avenue from west of the Box of the residents exiting the south side Grove Bypass to the York/Durham of Riverwalk Drive onto 9th Line. Line in two segments (programmed Many accidents have occurred here, for years 2016 and 2018). Specific mainly because there are no traffic improvements along 14th Avenue will lights to allow for safe passage of cars be the subject of a future class EA. from Rlverwalk Drive. Pedestrians Installation of interim traffic signals are also at risk, as they must cross 4 would be subject to a detailed warrant lanes of traffic in order to cross 9th analysis by the Region’s Traffic Line. We have asked for traffic lights Operations Division. This localized to be placed at Riverwalk Drive and traffic issue will be forwarded to the 9th Line, but have been told that the Region’s Traffic Operations Division extension of Donald Cousens onto 9th for action as needed. One of the Line will require a set of traffic lights. advantages of the proposed Donald
- 7 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status They cannot have 2 sets of traffic Cousens Parkway to Morningside lights In close approximation to each Avenue Link corridor will be to other. provide an alternate route for traffic originating in Durham Region We are at risk of more traffic destined for employment areas along problems on the north side of Markham Road, both within Riverwaik Drive, as the Donald Markham and Toronto. Capturing Cousens will introduce more traffic these trips at the perimeter of the Box onto 14th Avenue. Is there going to be Grove Development Area will reduce a traffic light placed here for us? You traffic impacts through the Box Grove realize with the construction of the community. Table 6-1 Alternative Bob Hunter Memorial Park, there will Alignment Analysis includes be a lot more foot traffic along 14th environmental factors related to Avenue. With the increased traffic on safety, including effect on 14th Avenue coming from the Donald accessibility, effects on safety of Cousens, and the lack of a traffic residents (under Socio-Economic lights at Riverwalk Drive and 14th Grouping), and safety (under Avenue, the safety of the Box Grove Transportation Grouping). residents are at risk. Anyone who provided comments during the public review of the EA will be notified by MOE when the EA Review is published and when a final decision is rendered by the Minister
- 8 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status
I would like some feedback, as I would like to update the residents on the ongoing assessment report. Member of the Public I am writing to you as President of Section 6 (Alternative Methods of The ministry is satisfied with the Morningside Heights Residents Carrying out the Undertaking) response. Association (MHRA). addresses the development, analysis and evaluation of the alignment We do not support the proposed alternatives that were considered in alignment of the Donald Cousens the EA and provides a traceable Parkway. Still, we recognize that the rationale for selection of the preferred alignment may be implemented. In alignment. The issue of potential either case, we have three traffic infiltration onto Staines Road is recommendations that address either discussed below in response to scenario. comment 3.
We recommend that the Province of Section 3.3.5 (Additional Traffic Ontario, York Region and the City of Modelling) considered two Toronto: alternatives for the discontinuous alignment. One of the alternatives 1) change the route of the Donald included a 4 lane section and the other Cousens Parkway (i.e. Markham a 6 lane section on Steeles Avenue. Bypass) such that it is routed north of The need for a 6 lane cross section on the golf course located on the land Steeles Avenue between 9th Line and north-west of the T-intersection of the Morningside Avenue Extension Staines Road and Steeles Avenue was demonstrated through the traffic rather than being routed along Steeles analysis and documented in Section Avenue between Ninth Line and 3.4 (Conclusion). See also Section Morningside Avenue Extension; the 6.3.8 (Alternative C2). benefit of this will be to eliminate traffic turning eastwards onto Steeles The City of Toronto has jurisdiction Avenue from Ninth Line and it will over Steeles Avenue, including traffic eliminate traffic overflow funnelling control. On May 27, 2010, Toronto down Staines Road during peak traffic staff reported to their Public Works flow periods. and Infrastructure Committee (entitled Clarification of Council Direction – 2) reduce the expansion of Steeles Steeles Avenue East at Tapscott Road Avenue from six to four lanes (i.e. and at Staines Road). The two lanes eastbound and two lanes recommendations of the Toronto
- 9 - Submitter Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status westbound) Committee report included the following: 3) in the event that our recommendation #1 (above) is not “City Council approve the installation implemented, then it is recommended of weekday AM Peak westbound to that York Region plan and enforce southbound left-turning prohibitions intentional measures to prevent traffic and PM Peak northbound to from diverting through the eastbound right-turning prohibitions Morningside Heights Community via at the intersection of Steeles Avenue Staines Road (e.g., no left turn signs East at Staines Road and direct that for traffic travelling westbound along these installations be implemented Steeles Avenue, radar enforcement of once the Markham By-Pass extension no left turn signs and the existing 40 from Highway 407 to Steeles Avenue km/h speed limit., etc.) East is approved and opened to public traffic.
- 10 -
Table 3. Aboriginal Communities Comment Summary Table
Proposal: Transportation Improvements, Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Avenue Link Amended EA Proponent: Regional Municipality of York
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities Aboriginal Affairs Submitted on behalf of the Consultation and Accommodation Unit Comment noted. N/A and Northern (CAU) of AANDC. The CAU’s Consultation Information Service Development (CIS) has been established to help co-ordinate departmental Canada (AANDC) responses to consultation-related queries within AANDC. The CIS also provides information, primarily to federal officials, related to Aboriginal groups and their Aboriginal and/or treaty rights, to the extent that these are known by AANDC.
I am attaching a response to your recent request for information concerning consultation with Aboriginal and First Nation communities in the vicinity of the improvement to the Donald Cousens parkway to Morningside Avenue Link.
A list of Aboriginal communities to be consulted was listed in the letter sent to me dated July 26, 2011. I reviewed the list you provided and searched the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights System (ATRIS). I did not find any additional Aboriginal communities to suggest that you contact. Alderville First We appreciate the fact that the Regional Municipality of York, York Region will continue to consult with The ministry is Nation recognizes the importance of First Nations Consultation and that Alderville First Nation as the project moves satisfied with the your office is conforming to the requirements within the Duty to through the design and construction phases. response. Consult Process. As noted in Section 8.2.2, a Stage 2 As per the Alderville First Nation Consultation Protocol, your Archaeological assessment will be conducted proposed project is deemed a level 3, having minimal potential to during the design phase for all undisturbed impact our First Nations’ rights, therefore, please keep Alderville areas. A copy of the Stage 2 and any apprised of any archaeological findings, burial sites or any subsequent Archaeological assessment reports environmental impacts, should any occur. will be provided to Alderville First Nation.
Although we may not always have representation at all In addition, a protocol will be in place during stakeholders meetings, it is our wish to be kept apprised construction to ensure proper notification of throughout all phases of this project. I can be contacted at the affected agencies and First Nations should
- 1 -
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities mailing address above or electronically via email, at the email archaeological resources be encountered address below. (including burial sites).
Mitigation measures and commitments to further work regarding potential effects on the Natural Environment are presented in Section 8.3 of the amended EA report. York Region will continue to consult with Alderville First Nation on potential effects on the Natural Environment as the project moves through the design and construction phases. Chippewas of As a member of the Williams Treaties First Nations, Rama First Comment noted. A copy the amended EA The ministry is RAMA First Nation acknowledges receipt of your letter of July 26, 2011. was circulated by York Region directly to Ms. satisfied with the Nation Sandy-McKenzie for review on July 26, 2011. response. A copy of your letter has been forwarded to Karry Sandy- Also enclosed with the circulation was a McKenzie, Barrister & Solicitor, Coordinator for Williams memo dated July 29, 2011 from the MOE to Treaties First Nations for further review and response directly to Aboriginal Communities, Acknowledgement you. of Receipt Form to be completed and returned to the MOE, and MOE Advice to Reviewers Please direct all future correspondence and inquiries, with a copy of EA’s. No comments were submitted by to Rama First Nation, to Ms. Sandy-McKenzie at 8 Creswick Ms. Sandy-McKenzie during the public and Court, Barrie, ON L4M 2J7 or her e-mail address at k.a.sandy- agency review of the amended EA. [email protected]. Her telephone number is (705) 792-5087.
Aboriginal Affairs In determining your duty to consult, you may wish to contact the Comment noted. The First Nations contact list The ministry is and Northern First Nations in the vicinity of your area of interest to advise them used for consultation on the amended EA for satisfied with the Development of your intentions. To do this you may: the Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside response. Canada Avenue Link was extremely comprehensive, find the Reserves in your area of interest by consulting a map of and included the First Nations identified the region such as the Province of Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal online at the resource links provided in the Affairs online map at http://www.ainc- agency comments (left). inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/on/rp/mcarte/mcarte-eng.asp ; then search for the First Nations located on those Reserves by using the The Consultation and Accommodation Unit of INAC Search by Reserve site at http://pse5-esd5.ainc- Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development inac.gc.ca/fnp/Main/Search/SearchRV.aspx?lang=eng Canada was also contacted and provided with a copy of the amended EA and the First To determine the First Nations in your area of interest who have Nations contact list. The Consultation and
- 2 -
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities submitted claims please consult the Reporting Centre on Specific Accommodation Unit of AANDC reviewed Claims at http://pse4-esd4.ainc- the First Nations contact list and searched the inac.gc.ca/SCBRI/Main/ReportingCentre/External/ExternalReport Aboriginal and Treaty Rights System. There ing.aspx?lang=eng. were no additional Aboriginal communities suggested to be contacted. It should be noted that the reports available on the INAC website are updated regularly and therefore, you may want to check this Comments received from First Nations on the site often for updates. In accordance with legislative requirements, amended EA are provided in this table. There confidential information has not been disclosed. were no issues identified related to claims.
Please rest assured that it is the policy of the Government of Canada as expressed in The Specific Claims Policy and Process Guide that:
“In any settlement of specific native claims the government will take third party interests into account. As a general rule, the government will not accept any settlement which will lead to third parties being dispossessed.”
We can only speak directly to claims filed under the Specific Claims Policy in the Province of Ontario. We cannot make any comments regarding potential or future claims, or claims filed under other departmental policies. This includes claims under Canada’s Comprehensive Claims Policy or legal action by a First Nation against the Crown. You may wish to contact the Assessment and Historical Research Directorate at (819) 994- 6453, the Consultation and Accommodation Unit at (613) 944- 9313 and Litigation Management and Resolution Branch at (819) 934-2185 directly for more information.
You may also wish to visit http://www.ainc- inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/acp/acp-eng.asp on the INAC website for information regarding the Federal Action Plan on Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation.
To the best of our knowledge, the information we have provided you is current and up-to-date. However, this information may not be exhaustive with regard to your needs and you may wish to
- 3 -
Aboriginal Summary of Comments Proponent’s Response Status Communities consider seeking information from other government and private sources (including Aboriginal groups). In addition, please note that Canada does not act as a representative for any Aboriginal group for the purpose of any claim or the purpose of consultation.
- 4 - MAKING A SUBMISSION?
A five-week public review period ending January 13, 2012 will follow publication of this Review. During this time, any interested parties can make submissions about the proposed undertaking, the amended environmental assessment or this Review. Should you wish to make a submission, please send it to:
Agatha Garcia-Wright, Director Environmental Approvals Branch Ministry of the Environment 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 Fax: (416) 314-8452
Re: Improvements Donald Cousens Parkway to Morningside Link Amended Environmental Assessment Attention: Gavin Battarino, Project Officer
Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Environmental Assessment Act, unless otherwise stated in the submission, any personal information such as name, address, telephone number and property location included in all submissions become part of the public record files for this matter and can be released if requested.