Enclosure 2 - Federal Authority Advice Record: Designation Request under IAA Response due by March 5, 2021 Project: Bradford Bypass Project Proponent: Ontario Ministry of Transportation Department/Agency: Health Canada Primary Contact Details: Kitty Ma 416-954-2206 Contact Name: Telephone: 180 Queen Street West, 10th floor Address: Fax: Toronto, Ontario, M5V 1Z4 [email protected] Email: Alternate Contact Details (if applicable): Umme Akhtar 416-278-1757 Contact Name: Telephone: 180 Queen Street West, 10th floor Address: Fax: Toronto, Ontario, M5V 1Z4 [email protected] Email: Has your department or agency considered w hether it has an interest in the Project; exercised a pow er or performed a duty or function under any Act of Parliament in relation to the Project; or taken any course of action (including provision of financial assistance) that w ould allow the Project to proceed in w hole or in part? Specify as appropriate. Not applicable. Is it probable that your department or agency may be required to exercise a pow er or perform a duty or function related to the Project to enable it to proceed? If yes, specify that pow er, duty or function and its legislative source. Not applicable. If your department or agency w ill exercise a pow er or perform a duty or function under any Act of Parliament in relation to the Project, w ill it involve public and Indigenous consultation? Specify as appropriate. Not applicable. Is your department or agency in possession of specialis t or expert information or know ledge that may be relevant to any potential adverse effects w ithin federal jurisdiction caused by the Project or adverse direct or incidental effects stemming from the Project? Specify as appropriate. 9e S XWVWdS^ SgfZad[fk' @WS^fZ ;S`SVS i [^^ bdah[VW ebWU[S^[ef ad WjbWdf [`Xad_Sf[a` S`V ]`ai ^WVYW [` fZW <WbSdf_W`fqe baeeWee ion (expertise) to support the assessment of impacts on human health from projects considered individually or cumulatively under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). It should also be noted that expertise related to assessing human health that is relevant to impact assessment (IA) may be held by other federal, provincial, and municipal partners, reflecting the shared jurisdiction for environmental and human health w ithin Canada. For example, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has expertise in the social determinants of health approach and health equity, and may provide that expertise through Health Canada, upon request from the Page 1 of 4 review ing body(ies). How the expertise provided by Health Canada and PHAC w ill be used in a potential IA process w ill ultimately be determined by the review ing body(ies). Health Canada can provide human health expertise in the follow ing areas: Air quality; Recreational and drinking w ater quality; Country foods; Noise; Methodological expertise in human health risk assessment; Methodological expertise in conducting health impact assessment; Electromagnetic fields; Radiological emissions; and Public health emergency management of toxic exposure events Has your department or agency had previous contact or involvement w ith the proponent or other parties in relation to the Project? Provide an overview of the information or advice exchanged. No. From the perspective of the mandate and area(s) of expertise of your department or agency, does the Project have the potential to cause adverse effects w ithin federal jurisdiction or adverse direct or incidental effects as described in section 2 of IAA? Could any of those effects be managed through legislativ e or regulatory mechanis ms administered by your department or agency? If a licence, permit, authorization or approval may be issued, could it include conditions in relation to those effects? Specify as appropriate. Health Canada is not a regulatory body and does not issue any approvals or make any regulatory decisions with respect to development projects. According to the Highway 400 - Highway 404 Extension Link (the Bradford Bypass Project) Route Planning and Environmental Assessment Study- Environmental Assessment Report (December, 1997) 1 (the EAR), the Project study area does not include any First Nations reserves and land tracts. However, it is not clear whether any Indigenous groups us e the Projec t Study A rea for tr aditional purposes (e.g. used for fishing, ceremonial or other uses). The report does not mention about any consultation activities with any Indigenous communities. In response to I99;qe [`Xad_Sf[a` dWcgWefe %JWcgWef -' I-' >WTdgSdk -+-,&' fZW Hdaba`W`fqe _W`f[a`e 2 that the Bradford Bypass Project Team is engaging and consg^f[`Y i [fZ eWhWdS^ A`V[YW`age ;a__g`[f[We pfa ^[efW` fa S`V Ua`e[VWd S`k [fW_e ad concerns raised regarding negative impacts to the health, social or economic conditions of their communities, or adverse impacts to Aboriginal and treaty rights, by the activities of the project during the Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) phase, Tgf S^ea fZdagYZagf fZW ^[XW aX fZW bda\WUfq)The local First Nation Georgina Island First Nation has expressed primary interest about fZW Hda\WUfqe bafW`f[S^ [_bSUf a` archaeological resources3. It is not know n w hether any other groups have expressed their Ua`UWd`e STagf fZW Hda\WUfqe bafW`f[S^ [_bSUf a` health or areas of Indigenous importance w ithin the Study Area. The information provided by the Proponent is not sufficient to definitively confirm whether there exists a potential to cause adverse effects on human health in federal jurisdiction i.e., effects to Indigenous peoples. How ever, should a decision be taken to designate this project under the IAA, Health Canada offers the following human-health related comments: The information on environmental (e.g., air quality, noise, soil, surface and ground water quality) and socio-economic conditions provided in the EAR1 has not been updated since 1997. The adjacent area to the Bradford Bypass Project (the Project) has grown in terms of population and development over the years. For example, the population of Bradford West Gwillimbury has increased almost 2.5 times in 23 years1,4. The EAR summarizes the potential impacts of the Project on noise, surface and ground water and proposed mitigation measures (Exhibit 5-11). However, the human health effects of these impacts are not well identified and described. 1 Available at: https://www.bradfordbypass.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BBP-RoutePlanningEA-1997.pdf 2 Available at: Bradford Bypass Initial Response to IAAC Requests 1 and 2 3 Available at: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/p81382/138111E.pdf 4 Available at: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710014201 Page 2 of 4 The potential for human health risks from exposure to air pollution Diesel exhaust emissions from heavy equipment, power generators and vehicle traffic are likely to be significant contaminant sources for the Project during construction and operation. It is important to identify a complete inventory of all potential air pollutants (including but not limited to polycyclic organic compounds, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), diesel particulate matter, ozone, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide). Health Canada anticipates that the proponent would provide assessments of the project-associated changes to the contaminant levels and associated mitigation measures if an assessment under IAA is required. The potential for human health risks from changes in noise The EAR identifies highway construction noise as an issue but does not assess in details potential Project related nois e impac ts . Giv en the Projec t w ill be in c lose pr oximity of the c ommunity of the Tow n of Bradford West Gw illimbury, a `a[eW SeeWee_W`f aX fZW Hda\WUf [e dWUa__W`VWV [` SUUadVS`UW i[fZ @WS^fZ ;S`SVSqe Yg[VS`UW VaUg_W`f a` `a[eW %Se outlined in Question 9 below). The noise assessment is also recommended to identify and describe human receptors that may have a heightened sensitivity to noise exposure (e.g., schools, child care centres, places of worship, etc.). As w ell, human receptors in rural areas can be considered to have a greater expectat[a` aX nbWSUW S`V cg[Wfo, particular attention should be given to the potential for sleep disturbance to local residents given this Project is located in the rural area. As part of the provincial EA process, the proponent is anticipated to explore mitigat ion measures to reduce potential project impacts on natural environments in consultation with relevant authorities (Bradford Bypass Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment Study Update Terms of Reference, 2019) 5. Health Canada recommends that the proponent VWhW^ab _[f[YSf[a`e _WSegdWe Se bWd fWUZ`[US^ Yg[VS`UW bdah[VWV [` @WS^fZ ;S`SVSqe Yg[VS`UW VaUg_W`fe %dWXWd fa fZW response to Question #9). Does your department or agency have a program or additional authority that may be relevant and could be considered as a potential solution to concerns expressed about the Project? If yes, please specify the program or authority. In particular, the follow ing issues have been raised by the requestor: Potential impacts to fish and fish habitat, including in the Holland Marsh w etland, the Holland River and Lake Simcoe, as w ell as any implic ations to the effective implementation of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, S.O. 2008, c. 23 and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan; Potential impacts on terrestrial and aquatic species at risk and their habitat, including changes to w etlands, w oodlands and natural corridors; Potential impacts to migratory birds, including potential for direct effects (e.g., mortality due to vehicle collisions, poisoning, habitat loss and fragmentation), and indirect effects (e.g., noise, artificial light, barriers to movement, and edges associated w ith roads); Potential impacts to human health, particular ly from changes in air quality, and noise and vibration levels, during project construction and operations, and from potential impacts to w ater quality (e.g.