review of the southeast collector trunk · pdf fileyork durham district office 230 westney...

REVIEW OF THE SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR TRUNK SEWER 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

NEED MORE INFORMATION?

Public Record Locations

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

Ministry of the Environment Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

2 St.Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario

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 Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto ON M4V 1L5 416-314-8001

Regional Municipality of Durham Office of the Regional Clerk 605 Rossland Road East Whitby ON L1N 6A3 905-668-7711 or 1-800-372-1102

Ministry of the Environment Central Region Office 5775 Yonge Street, 8th Floor North York ON M2M 4J1 416-326-6700

Scarborough Civic Centre (Clerk’s Office) 150 Borough Drive, 3rd Floor Toronto ON M1P 4N7 416-396-7288

Ministry of the Environment York Durham District Office 230 Westney Road South, 5th Floor Ajax ON L1S 7J5 905-427-5600

Town of Markham (Clerk’s Office) Anthony Roman Centre 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham ON L3R 9W3 905-475-4744

Unionville Public Library 15 Library Lane Markham ON L3R 5C4 905-513-7977

City of Pickering (Clerk’s Office) One The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 905-420-4611

Malvern District Library 30 Sewells Road Toronto ON M1B 3G5 416 396-8969

Markham Village Library 6031 Highway 7 Markham ON L3P 3A7 905-513-7977

York Region Administrative Centre 17250 Yonge Street, 4th Floor Newmarket ON L3Y 6Z1 1-877-464-9675

Pickering Central Library One The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 905-831-6265

This Review is subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 616/98 which sets out a deadline for the completion of this document. The deadline for the completion of the Review was October 2, 2009. This paragraph and the giving of the Notice of Completion are the notices required by subsection 7(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Review documents the ministry’s evaluation of the EA and takes the comments of the government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities into consideration.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 1

1. Environmental Assessment Process .................................................................... 2 1.1 Terms of Reference..................................................................................... 2 1.2 Environmental Assessment......................................................................... 4 1.3 Ministry Review.......................................................................................... 4

2. The Proposed Undertaking .................................................................................. 5

3. Results of the Ministry Review .......................................................................... 13 3.1 Compliance with ToR and EAA............................................................... 13

3.1.1 Ministry Analysis......................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Consultation................................................................................. 14 3.1.3 Conclusion ................................................................................... 23

3.2 Key Issues ................................................................................................. 24 3.2.1 Conclusion ................................................................................... 26

4. Summary of the Ministry Review...................................................................... 27

5. What Happens Now? .......................................................................................... 28 5.1 Additional Approvals Required ................................................................ 28 5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking ................................ 29

List of Appendices

Appendix A Environmental Assessment Act Requirements Appendix B Submissions Received During the Initial Comment Period List of Tables Table 1 Government Review Team Comment Summary Table Table 2 Public Comment Summary Table

Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Environmental Assessment Review

Executive Summary WHO The Regions of York and Durham WHAT Ministry Review of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed

undertaking which includes: • Construction of a new Southeast Collector (SEC) Trunk Sewer in combination

with implementing other water efficiency and inflow/infiltration (I/I) reduction measures.

• The new SEC Trunk Sewer includes construction of related facilities including Construction Shafts; a Corrosion Control Facility; Diversion Chamber; Odour Control Facility; Meter Facility; Maintenance Chambers; Air Fan Buildings; Air Dam; Interconnection Chamber; a Central Duffin’s Collector Chamber; Connection Chamber; and Construction Compounds.

WHEN • EA Submitted: November 28, 2008. • Initial Inspection Period: November 28, 2008 to January 23, 2009. • Notice of Completion of the Ministry Review Extension Period: February 2009

to October 2009. • Ministry Review Inspection Period: October 16, 2009 to November 20, 2009.

WHERE The study area is generally bounded by 16th Avenue/Highway 7 to the north, 9th Line to the west, Finch Avenue to the south, and the Pickering/Ajax municipal boundary to the east. The preferred SEC Trunk Sewer route begins just north of Box Grove in the Town of Markham; from there it follows along 14th Avenue to Townline Road. It turns south and follows Townline Road to the Hydro corridor, crossing into the City of Pickering, traveling east along the Hydro corridor to Liverpool Road. The route proceeds south on Liverpool Road to Finch Avenue, continuing east on Finch Avenue and ending at Valley Farm Road in the City of Pickering.

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

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

1


1. Environmental Assessment Process

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

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

EAs may identify a problem or opportunity, consider alternative ways of addressing the problem or opportunity, evaluate the environmental effects of the alternatives and select a preferred undertaking from the alternatives. The proponents must consider actions to avoid, reduce and mitigate potential environmental effects. In preparing the EA, the proponent completes various studies and consults with interested stakeholders including government agencies, the public and potentially affected Aboriginal communities to evaluate the alternatives and determine the preferred undertaking. Once the undertaking is approved, the proponent is required to monitor to demonstrate compliance with standards, regulations and the EAA approval.

EA Process

ToR Approval

↓ EA Preparation

↓ EA Submission

↓ EA Comment Period

↓ MMiinniissttrryy RReevviieeww

↓ Review Comment Period

↓ Minister’s Decision

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

On October 1, 2004, in response to submissions concerning York Region’s YDSS projects proposed under the Municipal Engineers Association’s Class EA, the Minister issued a Part II Order under the EAA requiring York Region to undertake an individual EA for the

2


proposed Southeast Collector (SEC) Trunk Sewer. The Minister also set out direction with regard to the preparation and content of the ToR in the form of eight commitments that York Region was required to fulfil during the preparation of the EA. The eight commitments are as follows:

1. Identify and assess alternative routes. 2. Develop monitoring and mitigation measures for any dewatering activities, including

measures that address potential impacts to well users and the natural environment. 3. Include among the criteria used to compare the alternative the following: dewatering

activities and impacts on existing water users and on all local surface, groundwater and natural heritage features. Data and baseline information must be collected for this purpose by conducting pump tests and modelling.

4. Address all reasonable alternative design and construction techniques associated with the preferred alternative selected as the proposed undertaking. In doing this, the impacts of all design and construction techniques on all local natural heritage features need to be included as well as the preferred design and construction techniques and reason for their selection.

5. Ensure that all technical studies prepared as part of the EA are peer reviewed by appropriate experts and document the review in the EA.

6. Prepare a technical analysis of the impacts of dewatering as part of the assessment and evaluation of alternate routes.

7. Prepare a detailed dewatering evaluation of the preferred alternative selected as the proposed undertaking.

8. Ensure that all technical studies for the preferred alternative selected as the proposed undertaking are carried out to a level of detail and information that would be required for an application for a Certificate of Approval and Permit to Take Water under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

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

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

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

3


establishment or enhancement of local infrastructure; and, establishment or enhancement of cultural heritage.

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

1.2 Environmental Assessment

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

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

1.3 Ministry Review

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

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

The Review outlines whether the information contained in the EA supports the recommendations and conclusions for the selection of the proposed undertaking. MOE staff, with input from the GRT, evaluate the technical merits of the proposed undertaking, including the anticipated environmental effects and the proposed impact management measures. The Review also provides an overview and analysis of the public, government agency and Aboriginal community comments on the EA and the proposed undertaking.

4


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

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

2. The Proposed Undertaking

Background

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

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

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

5


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

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

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

Assessment of Alternatives

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

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

• Do Nothing; • Limit Growth; • Implement Other Water Efficiency and I/I Reduction Measures; • Construct a New SEC Trunk Sewer; • Store and Attenuate Wastewater Flows; • Store and Transport the Wastewater by Truck; or, • Build a New Water Pollution Control Plant.

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

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

• Natural, Social, and Cultural • Technical and Financial

Each of the “alternatives to” was screened and ranked based on identification of potential effects on the environment, development of mitigation, compensation and enhancement

6


measures and the determination of net effects on the environment. A comparative evaluation based on the net effects ranked the most preferred to the least preferred alternative based on the identified advantages and disadvantages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Decreased operational risk and increased system security; • Easier to construct; • Requires significantly less maintenance;

7


• Surface water features are separated by low permeable deposits except for the last 20 per cent of the short-listed routes;

• Potential contaminant sources are generally separated by low permeable deposits for the short-listed routes;

• Provides meaningful savings over the long term; and, • Significantly fewer construction related disturbance/disruption effects to

surface features.

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

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

• Least potential for dewatering of all routes; • Shortest length of all routes; • Lower number of adjacent residences with fewer social effects anticipated

including noise/dust/vibrations and construction traffic disruption; • Ease of construction; • Option for interconnection with the existing SEC Trunk Sewer; • Fewest number of land purchases/easements; • Lowest anticipated groundwater and surface water effects on study area

watercourses; and, • Lowest capital cost (excluding land acquisition).

Description of the Preferred Undertaking

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

8


Avenue and Valley Farm Road where it joins the existing SEC Trunk Sewer at a proposed Connection Chamber.

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

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

The proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer will consist of: • 15 Construction Compounds; • 11 Construction Shafts; • 3 Maintenance Chambers; • 2 Air Fan Buildings; • A Corrosion Control Facility; • A Diversion Chamber; • A Meter Facility; • An Odour Control Facility • An Air Dam; • The Central Duffin’s Collector Chamber; • An Interconnection Chamber; and, • A Connection Chamber

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

The Diversion Chamber (Shaft 13) will be located at Ninth Line, south of Highway 407 in the community of Box Grove in York Region. The Diversion Chamber is required to divert portions of the incoming sewer flows from the existing SEC Trunk Sewer to the proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer. The Diversion Chamber will be designed to split the sewer flows

9


between the two Trunk Sewers based on the operation and maintenance requirements of the Regions.

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

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

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

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

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

The Interconnection Chamber (Shaft 4) will be located on the east side of Fairport Road on the Hydro Corridor, north of Finch Avenue in Durham Region. The Interconnection Chamber will connect the existing SEC Trunk Sewer with the new SEC Trunk Sewer. The Interconnection Chamber will allow flow diversion between the two Trunk Sewers to allow for improved opportunities for maintenance downstream. The Interconnection Chamber sewer pipes will be installed by “open-cut” construction as opposed to Tunnel Boring Machine construction. Tunnel construction from Shaft 6 is expected to end at a shallow extraction shaft which will serve as one part of the Interconnection Chamber. Another shaft

10


11

will be a deep drop shaft that will be used for tunnel construction going east towards Shaft 2. Air fans will also be installed and contained in a building at Shaft 4 in order to draw air upstream toward the OCF.

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

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

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

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

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

12

Source: Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Final (Amended) Environmental Assessment Report Volume 1, August 2009

Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Environmental Assessment Figure 1:



The purpose of the Ministry Review is to determine whether:

• The EA has met the requirements of the ToR and the EAA.

• There are any outstanding issues with the EA.

• The proposed undertaking has technical merit.

3. Results of the Ministry Review

The Review provides the MOE’s analysis of the SEC Trunk Sewer EA. The Review is not intended to summarize the EA, nor present the information found in the EA. For information on the decision-making process, refer to the EA itself. The EA and supporting documentation outline the EA planning process and demonstrate how the Regions have selected the preferred undertaking and made the final decision.

3.1 Compliance with ToR and EAA

3.1.1 Ministry Analysis

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

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

Must Haves in the EA:

• The EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR.

• EA must include all the basic EAA information requirements.

• EA demonstrates where all the additional commitments in the ToR were met, including studies and the consultation process.

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

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

The November 2008 EA submission was also missing information that is required under the EAA that includes a list of studies and reports that were completed as part of the SEC Trunk

13


Sewer EA. This information has now been provided to the MOE as part of the August 2009 amended EA submission in response to concerns raised about the EA.

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

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

3.1.2 Consultation

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

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

Section 5.1 of the EAA states:

“When preparing proposed terms of reference and an

environmental assessment, the proponent shall consult with such persons as may be interested.”

A summary of the activities undertaken by the Regions to engage the general public, the GRT, local municipalities and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the EA can be found in Chapter 8 of the amended EA. Further detailed information can also be found in the Consultation Summary Addendum, February 2009, and in Supporting Document No. 4: Summary of Consultation Activities, November 2008.

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

14


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

The August 2009 amended EA adequately documents the consultation methods utilized by the Regions to engage the public, government agencies, local municipalities and Aboriginal communities during the preparation of the initial EA submission and the subsequent consultation that was undertaken prior to submission of the amended EA. Consultation with appropriate First Nation communities has been ongoing since submission of the November 2008 SEC Trunk Sewer EA. Further detailed information can also be found in Supporting Document No. 4: Post-EA Submission Consultation Summary Report – January 24, 2009 to August 14, 2009 of the amended EA.

Government Review Team

Consultation Undertaken During Preparation of the EA

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

The GRT and municipalities were also given an opportunity to review the draft EA by the Regions in accordance with the approved ToR prior to submission of the November 2008 SEC Trunk Sewer EA to the MOE. The Regions indicated in the November 2008 EA submission that comments received about the draft EA were considered and incorporated into the November 2008 EA as necessary. Comments about the draft EA and the Regions’ responses can be found in Chapter 8 of the amended EA, in Supporting Document No. 4: Post-EA Submission Consultation Summary Report – January 24, 2009 to August 14, 2009 of the amended EA, in the Consultation Summary Addendum, February 2009, and in Supporting Document No. 4: Summary of Consultation Activities, November 2008.

Review of the November 2008 EA and August 2009 Amended EA

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

As a result of the comments received and the March 11, 2009 Durham Region council resolution to move the OCF to York Region, the Regions asked for an extension to the legislated deadline by which the MOE was required to complete this Review. An extension

15


was granted by the Director, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, until October 2, 2009 in order to allow the Regions more time to resolve as many issues as possible prior to publication of this Review.

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

• Why were mitigation measures removed in the amended EA when no questions or concerns had previously been raised about them? The Regions indicated that as a result of advancing the detail design of the proposed SEC Trunk Sewer, it was determined that some mitigation measures were not feasible and/or required.

• Concerns that meeting minutes with the City of Pickering about the amended location for the OCF included details about construction of the haul roads prior to EAA approval which is not permitted under section 12.2 of the EAA. The Regions have since indicated that they will not construct or upgrade the proposed haul roads prior to EAA approval.

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

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

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

The Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) provided comments on the November 2008 EA to the Regions indicating that based on the information provided in the November 2008 EA, a Class

16


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

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

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

The City of Pickering provided comments on the November 2008 EA including: • EA is too focused on the new SEC Trunk Sewer and not enough information

was provided on the I/I Reduction Measures; • EA does not indicate which haul roads will require upgrading and the extent

of those upgrades. Haul roads have not been approved by the City of Pickering;

• Temporary traffic lanes at Liverpool Road require a temporary easement; and, • Request to re-evaluate the location of the proposed OCF as only sites within

the City of Pickering were evaluated.

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

17


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

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

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

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

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

• Inadequacy of the EA to assess cumulative impacts of the entire YDSS proposal;

• Intrabasin transfer of groundwater from the Lake Simcoe Basin to the Lake Ontario Basin does not meet MOE policy or provisions in the Great Lakes Charter;

• Assessment of alternatives is inadequate; • Current I/I is not acceptable; • Proposed new SEC Trunk Sewer will encourage more inefficient

development; and, • Concerns about impacts to Lake Ontario water quality.

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

18


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

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

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

Southeast Collector Advisory Committee

During the preparation of the ToR and as part of the Regions’ commitment to the Minister to increase openness, transparency, and public access to involvement in the preparation of the EA, the Regions established the SeCAC comprised of government agency, municipal, and public representatives who had expressed an interest in meeting at key milestones during the preparation of the EA. These meetings provided the SeCAC with an opportunity to receive project updates from the Regions and its technical experts and to provide input and discuss concerns. At the final meeting of the SeCAC, prior to the Regions’ submission of the November 2008 EA, the SeCAC requested that a liaison committee of interested stakeholders be formed if the EA is approved to provide input on the development of consultation activities and communication to the public about the progress of the project, to bring forward issues raised about construction activity by the community, and to act as liaison between the Project Design Team and the community. The Regions have committed to the creation of the Southeast Collector Liaison Committee if EA approval is received.

Public Consultation


The Regions engaged in a consultation program with the public about the EA process and the proposed undertaking. The details of this consultation process can be found in Chapter 8 of the amended EA and in Supporting Document No. 4 of the amended EA and in the Consultation Summary Addendum, February 2009 and Supporting Document No. 4: Summary of Consultation Activities, November 2008.

Consultation with interested members of the public was a key component of the Regions’ planning process and is required by the EAA. The public, which includes the general public,

19


interest groups and property owners, were provided with opportunities to contribute to the preparation of the EA through providing comments at various stages during preparation of the EA. Public involvement in the EA process was achieved in a variety of ways.

Mailing lists were prepared during the ToR stage of the EA process and were carried forward during the preparation of the EA. Interested members of the public were added to the list throughout the EA process. The mailing lists provided an on-going means for the Regions to update the public on the EA process and to request comments. Other consultation tools used by the Regions included newspaper ads, technical workshops, synopsis reports, discussion papers, newsletters, resident outreach surveys, a project website and hotline, and public information forums (PIFs).

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

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

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


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

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

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

20


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

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

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

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

Aboriginal Community Consultation

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


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

Aboriginal rights stem from practices, customs or traditions which are integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal community claiming the right. Treaty rights stem from the signing of treaties by Aboriginal peoples with the Crown. Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

21


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

The Regions and the First Nation communities also entered into a Protocol for First Nations Consultation (Protocol) setting out general principles and a process under which they would work together to identify potential effects of the proposed undertaking and measures to mitigate those effects. The Protocol also served to clarify roles and responsibilities with respect to the protection of burials, and artefacts/funerary objects which may be discovered by archaeological studies. A copy of the Protocol was included in the November 2008 EA document and can be found in Supporting Document No. 4 dated November 2008.

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

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

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

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

22


EA Report pre-submission meeting would be scheduled for July 2008. Notification and a copy of the draft EA was distributed prior to the pre-submission meeting in July 2008.

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


The Aboriginal communities’ consultation process undertaken by the Regions is summarized in the August 2009 amended EA with more detail provided in Supporting Document No.4 of the August 2009 amended EA as well as in Supporting Document No. 4 dated November 2008.

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

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

3.1.3 Conclusion

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

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

23


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

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

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

3.2 Key Issues

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

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

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

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

• Reliability of the proposed technology; • Inappropriateness of locating the facility in Durham Region; • Potential reduction in property values; • Odour and noise that will be emitted from this facility will impact the

community of Cherrywood West, located 300 m from the proposed facility, and surrounding residential areas west of Finch Avenue;

• Lack of information that was provided to the residents about this project; and,

24


• The proposed site is located on the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.

Other issues raised by the public about the proposed undertaking include: • Potential effects on wells serving agricultural operations (for example,

Whittamore’s Berry Farm) and how they will be mitigated; • Region does not recognize residual interference impacts from the 9th Line and

the 16th Avenue YDSS projects inherent in the stream and groundwater monitoring for SEC Trunk Sewer; and,

• Opposition to the preferred sewer route through the Bob Hunter Memorial Park.

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

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

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

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

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

25


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

3.2.1 Conclusion

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

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

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

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

26


4. Summary of the Ministry Review

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

This Review concludes: • The MOE is satisfied that the Regions’ planning and decision-making process

meets the requirements as set out in the EAA and the approved ToR; • The MOE is satisfied that the responses provided by the Regions address the

concerns raised. • The MOE is satisfied that potential effects to the environment of the proposed

undertaking can be managed; and, • The consultation undertaken meets the requirements as set out in the EAA and

the approved ToR.

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

27


5. What Happens Now? Next Step in the

EA Process

ToR Approval

↓ EA Preparation

↓ EA Submission

↓ EA Comment Period

↓ Ministry Review

↓ R

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

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

Reevviieeww CCoommmmeenntt PPeerriioodd

↓ Minister’s Decision

The Minister will make one of the following decisions: • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking; • Give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to conditions; or • Refuse to give approval to proceed with the undertaking.

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

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

5.1 Additional Approvals Required If EAA approval is granted, the

proponent must still obtain any other

permits or approvals required to construct

and operate this undertaking.

If EAA approval is granted, the Regions will still require other legislative approvals to design, construct and operate this undertaking. Chapter 9 of the amended EA outlines additional

28


approvals that may be required. These approvals may include but are not limited to:

• Municipal Approvals (Town of Markham, City of Pickering, City of Toronto, Utility Authorities):

o Tree removal Permits o Exemptions for Construction Noise o Building Permits o Property Agreements (Easements, encroachment agreements) o Road Occupancy Permits o Haul Road Approvals o Open Cut Permits o Discharge to Sewer Permits o Fill and Topsoil Removal Approval o Potential Relocation Utilities (phone, gas, cable etc.)

• Provincial Approvals:

Ministry of the Environment o Permits To Take Water (Ontario Water Resources Act) o Certificate of Approval – Municipal Sewage Works (Ontario Water

Resources Act) o Certificate of Approval – Air (Environmental Protection Act) o Certificate of Approval – Noise (Environmental Protection Act)

Ministry of Culture o Letter of Concurrence re: Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments

Ontario Realty Corporation o Permanent and temporary easements

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Conservation Authorities Act) o Approvals may be required for crossings under creeks and streams o Permits to authorize temporary site construction activities o Approvals for temporary land requirements

Hydro One Networks Inc. o Consent is required for the new SEC Trunk Sewer alignment prior to

negotiating required easements and agreements with ORC.

5.2 Modifying or Amending the Proposed Undertaking

Chapter 10 of the amended EA describes the Regions’ proposed procedure for amending the EA in recognition of the fact that there could be changes to the proposed undertaking during detail design and/or construction.

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

1. No amendment required

29


2. Minor amendment required 3. Major amendment required

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

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

If the response is “Yes” to any of the above, the Regions have proposed to determine the potential effect of that change on the environment. If the Regions determine that the change is negligible, then no amendment would be required. If the change resulted in an “increased potential adverse effect” then it would be categorized as either a minor or major amendment.

Minor amendments would not alter the proposed undertaking significantly in terms of what, where, how, and/or when it would be built. The Regions have proposed that minor amendments would be addressed without requesting formal approval from the Minister, but will be subject to any applicable legislation as required prior to construction.

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

The amended EA indicates that any changes to the proposed undertaking that have been categorized as either a minor or a major amendment based on the increased potential adverse effect are subject to discussions with the MOE’s Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB) and concurrence from the Director, EAAB, would be sought for any proposed amendment.

30

APPENDIX A

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS


EA Decision Making Process

EAA and ToR Requirements

Description and Characteristics

of the Requirements Analysis of the EAIdentify an existing problem or opportunity

The EA should contain a brief explanation of the problem or opportunity that prompted the proposed activity.

Problem/Opportunities

Purpose of the Undertaking: s.6.1(2)(a)

If a specific undertaking has been identified provide a brief description.

• Based on an analysis of future projected growth and existing capacity, the Regions determined that additional sanitary sewer capacity was required to facilitate development to 2036.

• The proposed undertaking is the construction of a new Southeast Collector (SEC) Trunk Sewer in combination with implementing other water efficiency and inflow/infiltration (I/I) reduction measures.

• The ministry is satisfied that the requirements of the EAA and ToR have been met.

Alternatives Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Alternatives to: Alternatives to s.6.1(2)(b)(iii)

“Alternatives to” represent functionally different ways of addressing the problem or opportunity. A reasonable range of “alternatives to” should be identified and evaluated. The proponent should be able to justify that it has considered a reasonable range of alternatives.

• The EA included a description and rationale for seven “alternatives to” including:

• Do nothing • Limit Growth • Implement Other Water Efficiency

and Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Measures

• Construct a New Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer

• Store and Attenuate Wastewater Flows


Description and EA Decision Making EAA and ToR Characteristics

Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAThe “do nothing” alternative to should be included in the evaluation and will represent the “bench mark” situation.

• Store and Transport the Wastewater by Truck

• Build a New Water Pollution Control Plant

• The preferred “alternative to” is described above.


Description and Statement of the Rationale for the Alternatives methods: Alternative Methods s.6.1(2)(b)(ii)

“Alternative methods” include a description of different ways of implementing the preferred “alternative to” A reasonable range of “alternative methods” should be identified and outlined.

• The alternative methods examined included various potential routes for the new SEC Trunk Sewer as well as an evaluation as to the type of conveyance system that would be used.

• Thirteen alternative sewer routes were generated through a constraint mapping exercise and were then screened based on technical, financial, and hydrogeological criteria. The two conveyance methods – tunnel vs. pumping station/forcemain options were also screened for each of the 13 proposed sewer routes.

• The “long list” of 13 routes was screened to a list of five routes that were then further assessed to



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAdetermine potential impacts to the environment. It was also determined that the tunnelling option was more favourable.

• The EA provides an overview of the decision making process and explains how the Regions evaluated the alternative methods to determine the preferred method for the proposed undertaking.


Evaluation Description of the Environment s.6.1(2)(c)(i)

Proponents must consider the broad definition of the environment including the natural, biophysical, social, economic, built and cultural conditions. The EA must provide a description of the existing environmental conditions in the study area. The EA must identify those elements of the environment that may be reasonably expected to

• The main study area is generally bounded by 16th Avenue /Highway 7 to the north, 9th Line to the west, Finch Avenue to the south, and the Pickering/Ajax municipal boundary to the east. The study area was broken down for the purposes of describing the existing environment based on either the “alternative to” or “alternative method” that was being assessed.

• The purpose of providing the existing conditions in the study area(s) was to establish baseline conditions.



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAbe affected, either directly or indirectly, by the proposed undertaking and/or the alternatives.

• Natural (including biophysical), social, built and cultural existing conditions were provided.

• The Regions identified potential impacts to the environment that may be reasonably expected to be affected, either directly or indirectly by the proposed undertaking.


Description of Potential Environmental Effects s.6.1(2)(c)(ii)

Both positive and negative environmental effects should be discussed. The EA must identify methods and studies used to analyze the potential environmental effects. The methods used are contingent on the type of project. Impact assessment methods and criteria used during the evaluation should be identified. The methods chosen must be clear, traceable and replicable so

• The Regions considered the potential effects that the alternatives to and alternative methods would have on the environment.

• The amended EA identified the methods and studies undertaken to assess potential effects on the environment.

• The impact assessment methods and criteria were identified in the amended EA with additional information contained in supporting documents.

• No additional technical work is required in the amended EA. The



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAthat interested parties can understand the analysis and logic used throughout the EA.

Regions are continuing to advance the detailed design of the proposed SEC Trunk Sewer and associated facilities.


Description of the Actions Necessary to Prevent, Change, Mitigate or Remedy the Environmental Effects s.6.1(2)(c)(iii)

A description of future commitments, studies and a work plan may be included as part of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy environmental effects for each alternative for the ultimate purpose of comparing them.

• The Regions have committed to a number of mitigation and monitoring measures aimed at preventing and mitigating potential environmental effects from the proposed undertaking.

• The Regions compared mitigation and monitoring requirements to the alternatives as part of their assessment process.

• The Regions have also committed to implementing “enhancements” in the study area should the EA be approved. There are a total of 42 enhancements listed in the amended EA.


Evaluation of Advantages and

The preferred alternative should be identified through this

• Advantages and disadvantages to the environment are evaluated



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EADisadvantages to the Environment s.6.1(2)(d)

evaluation. throughout the EA. • Advantages and disadvantages to

the environment were assessed for the five short-listed alternative sewer routes only rather than evaluate all thirteen alternative sewer routes in detail.

• The decision making process developed in the EA was not always clear, traceable and reproducible. Additional information submitted as part of the amended EA provided more clarity, traceability, and reproducibility that was initially lacking.


Description of Consultation with Interested Stakeholders s.6.1(2)(e)

A description of stakeholder consultation that occurred during the preparation of the EA needs to be documented and should include consultation methods used, frequency of consultation, dates that events occurred, target audience, descriptions of key milestones for which stakeholders are providing input,

• The community and stakeholder consultation process is detailed in Chapter 8 of the amended EA and in Supporting Document No. 4 of the amended EA and in Section 8, Consultation Summary Addendum, of the Supplemental Information Package prepared by the Regions following comments received during the first public comment



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAcomments received. The EA must identify any Aboriginal consultation efforts that have been made including methods for identifying potentially interested First Nations, who was consulted, when and how consultation occurred and any comments received from First Nations. The EA should include conflict resolution techniques to resolve issues used by the proponent to resolve outstanding issues with any stakeholders. There must be clear documentation as to how issues and concerns have been addressed.

period. • General consultation activities

included the creation of the Southeast Collector Advisory Committee (SeCAC), meetings with the SeCAC, government agencies, the public and Aboriginal communities, Public Information Forums (PIFs), Technical Workshops, Neighbourhood Sessions, Discussion Papers, Newsletters, Resident Outreach, site visit, letters, project hotline and web site.

• When required, the Regions held additional issue-specific meetings.

• Results of the consultation efforts are summarized in Chapter 8 of the amended EA with more specific details being provided in Supporting Document No. 4.

• Details regarding identification of potentially interested Aboriginal communities and the ongoing consultation and engagement of those groups throughout the process based on their needs and the concerns raised are summarized in Chapter 8 of the amended EA.



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EA• Throughout the preparation of the

EA, interested persons were provided with opportunities to become involved in the study, access to information and responses to any outstanding concerns, and were encouraged to participate in the identification and resolution of any issues. Details are summarized in Chapter 8 of the amended EA.

• Issues raised and responses from the Regions are summarized in Chapter 8 of the amended EA.


Proposed Undertaking Selection Process

Description and Statement of the Rationale for the undertaking s.6.1(2)(b)(i)

The description of the undertaking should specify what the proponent is seeking approval for under the EAA. The description should include information on the location, attributes, dimensions, emissions etc. The evaluation process should identify which is the preferred undertaking.

• The Regions have provided a detailed description of the undertaking they are seeking EAA approval for in Chapter 6 of the amended EA.

• A description and statement of the rationale for the undertaking has been provided by the Regions in Chapter 3 of the amended EA.

• The amended EA documents how the proposed construction of a new SEC Trunk Sewer will resolve the



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAexisting need for additional sanitary sewer capacity in the Region of York.


Next Steps and Additional Commitments

Additional Commitments

Outline any further commitments made by the proponent in the EA.

• The Regions will prepare a Comprehensive Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Implementation Document for use during construction of proposed undertaking that reflects all mitigation/compensation measures and monitoring requirements identified in the EA.

• The Regions will retain an environmental officer for the duration of the construction contract.

• The Regions will refine the list of Final Recommended Enhancements, meet with interested stakeholders on an ongoing basis and incorporate additional input, where applicable.

• The Regions will confirm the scope and feasibility of implementing the recommended enhancements and



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAdevelop plans for implementation of feasible enhancements.

• The Regions will maintain the SeCAC or some other form of liaison committee during the construction of the proposed undertaking and related facilities.

• The Regions will provide the TRCA with the environmental data collected through the monitoring programs.

• The Regions have committed to continue to work with stakeholders and communities throughout the EA process and into the construction phase of the proposed undertaking.

• In relation to issues raised concerning construction related impacts, the Regions will obtain input from the Manresa Jesuit Spiritual Renewal Centre for consideration when finalizing construction mitigation plans.

• In response to issues concerning the proposed location of the Odour Control Facility, the Regions will arrange a field trip for the Cherrywood and Cherrywood West



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAresidents to one or more working sites to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed technology.

• The Regions will continue to work closely with agencies, First Nations and Métis communities, property owners, residents of Cherrywood and Cherrywood West, City of Pickering, and interest groups to ensure commitments made under this EA are fulfilled.

• The Regions will provide First Nations representatives with the necessary funding and the opportunity to be on site as a “cultural monitor” during site clearing activities.

• The Regions will provide financial support to obtain First Nations input and expertise regarding any significant cultural finds encountered during construction.

• The Regions will consider retaining First Nations businesses as part of the project.

• The Regions will implement construction practices in accordance with York Region’s



Process Requirements of the Requirements Analysis of the EAsustainable practices guidelines.

• The Regions will notify First Nations of the location of any spoils to be stockpiled during construction.

• The Regions will retain an archaeological firm to undertake a study of the history of First Nations within the study area to identify potential locations for signage or interpretative markings along the Toronto Carrying Place East – Heritage Trail, a proposed enhancement.

• The Regions will provide First Nations with the opportunity to participate in the development of the Toronto Carrying Place East – Heritage Trail.

• The Regions will provide funding for an archaeologist to perform an independent review of the archaeological reports and serve as an independent observer during top soil stripping at the shaft locations.

• The Regions will provide funding for Archaeological Services Inc. to supervise the stripping of shafts prior to construction to ensure that

ollector Trunk Sewer Environmental Assessment Review

EA Decision Making Process

EAA and ToR Requirements

Description and Characteristics

of the Requirements Analysis of the EAthere are no artefacts within the areas to be excavated.


Additional Approvals Outline additional approval requirements. Provide sufficient detail about the nature of the approval.

• Chapter 9 of the amended EA provides details on the additional approvals that are anticipated to be required. Sufficient detail about the nature of the approval has been provided.


Southeast C

APPENDIX B

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED DURING THE INITIAL COMMENT PERIOD

Available at: • MOE, Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch

TABLE 1

GOVERNMENT REVIEW TEAM COMMENT SUMMARY TABLE

Table 1. Government Review Team Comment Summary Table

Proposal: York-Durham Sewage System Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Environmental Assessment Proponent: Regions of York and Durham

GRT Agency Summary of Comments Proponents’ Response Status

PROVINCIAL AGENCIES

Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB), Environmental Assessment Project Coordination Section

In general, the organization of the information continues to be confusing and the planning process followed is not clear and complete. The EA should have been carefully reviewed to ensure that it had been completed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario (EA Code of Practice) and the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) prior to formal submission.

The Final EA Report was reviewed to ensure that it had been completed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario, November 2008 and the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) prior to formal submission.

The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’ response.

The environmental planning and decision making process followed to reach the conclusion of the preferred alternative and its potential impacts after impact management measures have been determined (i.e. mitigation) have not been clearly explained within the main EA document.

The Final EA Report represents accurately the planning and decision-making process that was followed during the SEC Trunk Sewer EA process and communicates that clearly.


There has been no discussion provided in the EA document surrounding the assessment that was completed to determine where the accessory facilities (i.e. alternative methods) that are required as part of the SEC would be located.

Appendix F – Odour Control Strategy and Consideration of Potential Odour Control Facility Locations –Update August 2009 has been prepared and included in Volume II – Appendices of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


The EA Code of Practice further states that the EA document needs to contain sufficient information to ensure that both the expert and the lay reader can understand the planning process that was followed. The main document should be sufficiently detailed so that it can stand on its own and

In recognition of this Minister approved approach to documentation, the main EA Report lays out the results of the planning process with the supporting documents providing substantial detail for those wishing to read it. Notwithstanding this fact, and as mentioned above, the Final SEC Trunk Sewer EA Report was reviewed in light of the Code of Practice


1



provide a complete picture of the planning process and its conclusions. Currently, the main EA document does not meet this requirement and refers the reader to technical documents and working papers in order to try and follow the planning process that was followed.

for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario issued in November 2008.

The main EA document should also include the following elements which currently are not included:

List of Studies and Reports:

In accordance with Regulation 334, the EA must contain:

• A list of studies and reports which are under the control of the proponent and which were done in connection with the undertaking or matters related to the undertaking.

• A list of studies and reports done in connection with the undertaking or matters related to the undertaking of which the proponent is aware and that are not under the control of the proponent.

A List of Studies and Reports has been included as Appendix C of the Final (Amended) EA Report in response to this comment.


Terms of Reference (ToR) Requirements:

• All proponents are required to present in the EA report a tabular summary of the requirements of the approved ToR and where in the EA they are discussed as the EA must be prepared in accordance with the approved ToR.

A table containing the list of SEC Trunk Sewer EA ToR commitments and how they were addressed in the EA has been provided in Appendix B of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


2



Appendices:

• A copy of the approved ToR should appear in an Appendix.

• The appendices are meant to support the information provided in the EA.

A copy of the Approved SEC Trunk Sewer EA ToR (February 2006) has been provided in Appendix A of the Final (Amended) EA Report.

As mentioned above, the Minister approved approach to documentation called for the additional information to be provided via supporting documents versus appendices.


The Minister approved ToR states on page 15:

“The assessment of environmental effects will increase in detail as the study progresses to identify the preferred alternative and take into consideration other projects within and outside of the study area that may potentially interact with the effects of this project thus addressing cumulative effects.”

It is unclear in the EA report where cumulative effects of the proposed undertaking have been assessed/addressed. As the EA must be prepared in accordance with the approve ToR, the EA should be amended to ensure that cumulative effects of the proposed undertaking have been addressed in the EA.

Supplemental Document: – Consideration of Cumulative Effects has been included in Appendix G of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Description of the Environment

a. The EAA requires a description of the environment that may be affected or reasonably expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the alternatives to the undertaking. Section 4.3 of the

a. We have included an environmental description in the Final (Amended) EA Report


3



EA report is titled “Description of the Environment Potentially Affected” yet no description of the environment is provided for the alternative to of implementing other water efficiency and inflow/infiltration reduction measures.

b. This section is further incomplete/inconsistent as the introductory paragraph indicates that only the natural, social and cultural aspects of the environment would be described. The definition of the environment contained in the EAA is more comprehensive than what is indicated in the EA report. Following this statement indicating that the “natural, social and cultural” environments would be described for each of the alternatives to, the built environment is then described for the alternative of “Construct a New Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer” but is not included for the alternative of “Store and Attenuate Wastewater Flows”.

c. This section also needs to provide information on the “social” environment for each of the alternatives to. Simply describing the boundaries of the study area for the alternative does not even begin to describe the “social” environment that may be affected or reasonably expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, by the alternatives to the undertaking.

in response to your request.

b. We have provided additional information in relation to the Social Environment Description in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

4



c. We have provided additional information in relation to the Social Environment Description in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

Chapter 2 is titled “Rationale” yet the section actually discusses the Purpose.

Chapter 2 of the Final (Amended) EA Report is now called “Purpose”.


Chapter 3 is titled “Purpose” yet the section actually discusses Rationale.

Chapter 3 of the Amended Final EA Report is now called “Rationale”.


Figure 3.1 should show the existing features of the existing York Durham Sewer System (i.e. Odour Control Facilities etc.)

Section 3.1.1 provides a brief overview of the YDSS and Figure 3.1 graphically shows it.


Page 3-3 indicates that the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) has been “meeting or exceeding the highest environmental standards in the industry”. Please provide a reference to support this statement.

The following text has been added to the Final (Amended) EA Report for clarification purposes: For example, the original plant was constructed to meet “secondary treatment standards” that were common in Ontario at that time. To keep up with current standards, the existing plant capacity expansion includes significant changes and improvements that focus on the reduction of effluent toxicity and the reduction in nutrient discharge, primarily phosphorous.


5




Page 3-5 indicates that the Class EA for the Duffin Creek WPCP was approved by the MOE in 2007. Class EAs are not approved by the MOE unless there was a Part II Order request filed for the project. Class EAs are pre-approved as per the Parent Class EA document if the project follows the process detailed in the Class EA. Indicating that the Class EA was approved by the MOE insinuates that a formal review and approval by the Minister was undertaken and this may confuse readers.

Please clarify and edit all references to Class EAs throughout the document where appropriate.

The sentence was revised as follows in the Final (Amended) EA Report: Although a number of Part II Order requests were received, the Minister denied them allowing the project to proceed with a number of conditions.

As directed, all other references to Class EAs were revised/clarified in the Final Amended EA Report as appropriate.


Page 4-3 provides a description of the various legislation and its impact to the alternative of “Limit Growth”. This is not a description of the alternative to, but moves into rationale for the screening of this option. Consider revising.

A brief description of the various legislation and its relationship to the “Limit Growth” alternative was given because it provides both the expert and the lay reader a necessary context for what would be required in order to implement the alternative. It is with this context that allows the expert and lay reader understand the results of the screening process provided in the Final EA Report as follows:

As a result, no changes were made to the Final (Amended) EA Report to address this comment.

Page 4-5 discusses that a review of WPCPs along the shoreline of Lake Ontario was undertaken to determine that only the Duffin Creek WPCP could provide the treatment capacity required by the YDSS.

A copy of this review should be included as an appendix to the EA report to support this

This has been included in Appendix D of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


6



conclusion.

The first sentence of the description of the alternative “Store and Attenuate Wastewater Flows” on page 4-5 alludes to the fact that the preferred undertaking will be the construction of a New Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer. This comparison should be removed. Further in this paragraph, an analysis on wet weather events appears in relation to future development. This discussion should be provided in the analysis of the alternative, not in the description of the alternative.

We have removed the first part of this sentence in the Final (Amended) EA Report to avoid confusion with regards to alluding to the preferred undertaking.

Rather than providing an analysis on wet weather events in relation to future development, this statement provides both the expert and the lay reader a necessary context for understanding the rationale behind why the alternative was considered.



In Table 4-1 the EA report states that “York Region has established a proactive and reactive well mitigation strategy…” yet there are no details anywhere in the EA on what this mitigation strategy entails.

Please provide a copy of the mitigation strategy as an appendix to the EA, and provide additional details on what the mitigation strategy entails in the EA report.

A copy of the York and Durham Region Well Mitigation Strategy has been provided as Appendix E of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Table 4-1 indicates that a question was raised about “decommissioning Stouffville”. Is this relevant to the EA? If it is relevant, then additional information should be provided so that the reader can understand the context.

To clarify, this question was included in Table 4-1 because it was raised by a member of the SeCAC at the December 9, 2005 SeCAC meeting and a response was provided.

In terms of its relevance to the EA, the question was raised in relation to consideration of the Long List of Alternatives to the Undertaking, specifically Alternative “G” – Build a new WPCP. The issue was raised related to whether or not a Lake Simcoe based WPCP could address the problem statement


7



of accommodating the additional sanitary sewer flows projected from future growth as allowed for in York Region’s Official Plan.

As a result, the context of this question is appropriate in Table 4-1 of the EA Report. However, as per MOE comments, a new consultation chapter (Chapter 8) has been included in the Final (Amended) EA Report, therefore Table 4-1 has been removed in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

Table 4-2 lists DFO as a Review Agency on its own, yet further in the list it lists TRCA and DFO as a Review Agency together. Please explain this discrepancy.

This discrepancy was a typo in Table 4-2. However, as mentioned in the above response, a new consultation chapter has been included in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report, therefore Table 4-2 has been removed in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report.


Please explain the relevance of providing comments in Table 4-2 relating to updated contact information and comments such as “please keep informed”.

The relevance of providing those types of comments in Table 4-2 – Summary of Review Agency Comment s Received and their Consideration is to provide a complete list of all comments that were received from each Agency and how they were responded to/considered regardless of the actual comments received.

Notwithstanding this, a new consultation chapter has been included in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report, therefore Table 4-2 has been removed in the Final (Amended) EA Report.


In Table 4-2, the comments associated with TRCA and DFO are incomplete. It is not sufficient to simply state that they provided comments when specific comments are included that were provided by other Review Agencies.

As mentioned in the above response, a new consultation chapter has been included in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report, therefore Table 4-2 has been removed in the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Table 4-3 needs to be revised and comments relating to steps in the process that had not yet been completed (i.e.

As mentioned in the above response, a new consultation chapter has been included in the Final (Amended) EA Report, therefore Table 4-3 has


8



comments on alternative methods etc.) should be removed.

been removed in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

Section 4.2 – why were screening criteria developed that do not meet the purpose of the proposed undertaking? Screening criterion number 1 states “Can the alternative fully or partially address the additional sanitary sewer flows projected?” If an alternative can only partially address the “need” than why would it be screened through to alternative methods?

Since the Minister approved SEC Trunk Sewer EA ToR allowed for a combination of alternatives to be selected as the preferred alternative, alternatives that could only partially address the additional sanitary sewer flows projected were not screened out based on the application of that screening criterion because they could still potentially become part of the preferred alternative in combination with another alternative, hence fully addressing the “need”.

As per Supporting Document #5, a table, which is now included in the Final (Amended) EA Report (Chapter 4) provides rationale for each of the Alternatives to the Undertaking Screening Criteria.


Section 4.2 – Screening Criterion needs to be defined. What does “technically feasible” mean?

Please see the table above that addresses comment #15.


Table 4-4 – If the Regions cannot carry out the alternative of limiting growth, than how is it technically feasible?

Although the alternative “limit growth” cannot not be carried out directly by the Regions of York and Durham and/or their lower tier municipalities because they would need the Province to implement this alternative, the alternative is still technically feasible. In other words, if a provincial amendment to the Provincial Policy Statement to exempt York Region from the Places to Grow Act was obtained, then the alternative could be implemented.


Section 4.2.1 uses terminology that is highly subjective and should be revised. For example, terms such as “significant” and “primary” should be defined in the context of this EA, or be revised to ensure that the EA planning process followed is clear to the reader.

We have omitted these terms from the Final (Amended) EA Report to ensure that the EA planning process followed is clear to the reader.


9



Please explain why the alternative of “Store and Attenuate Wastewater” was added back in if it was previously determined to not meet the requirements of the screening criteria.

As stated in the first sentence of Section 4.2.2, Alternative E “Store and attenuate Wastewater Flows” was reconsidered by the project team in response to comments raised by the public at the April 9, 2006 Alternatives to the Undertaking Workshop. In other words, the public felt that it should be added to the “short-list” and carried forward for comparative evaluation rather than being screened out and in considering this comment, the decision was made to include it.


Table 4-5 needs to be revised and comments relating to steps in the process that had not yet been completed (i.e. comments on alternative methods etc.) should be removed.

As mentioned in the above responses, a new consultation chapter has been included in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report, therefore Table 4-5 has been removed in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report.


Section 4.4 is difficult to follow as the EA report evaluates the alternatives against potential impacts to the existing environment which is listed as: technical, natural, social, cultural, and financial.

Section 4.3, which is titled “Description of the Environment Potentially Affected” does not describe the “technical”, “financial”, or “social” environment, so it is difficult to understand and follow the planning process when a complete description of the environment has not been provided to the reader.

The “short-listed” alternatives to the undertaking were comparatively evaluated through 32 evaluation criteria grouped within the following categories specified in the Minister approved SEC Trunk Sewer EA ToR: technical, natural environment, social environment, cultural environment, and financial. As a result, those same categories or factor areas were continued in the SEC Trunk Sewer EA process to ensure consistency. Similarly, the description of the environment (Natural, Social (includes Built), and Cultural) in the Minister approved SEC Trunk Sewer EA ToR, were continued in the SEC Trunk Sewer EA process to ensure consistency. The technical category relates primarily to the engineering/design aspects associated with the alternatives, and; as a result, does not lend itself to an environmental description like natural or cultural. Similarly, the financial category relates primarily to the costs associated with the alternatives, and; therefore, does not lend itself to an environmental description like natural or cultural. In terms of the social environment, please see our response to MOE EAAB’s Comment re: Description of the


10



Environment

With this in mind, to minimize confusion and provide greater understanding, the following provides a context between the evaluation categories and description of the environment:

• Evaluation Categories: technical, natural, social, cultural, and financial

Environmental Description: natural, social (includes built), and cultural.

Table 4-6 needs to provide definitions for the term “relative” where it is used as a measure for the criteria listed.

The definition of “relative” in the context of the measures associated with each the evaluation criterion is as follows:

• “Relative” refers to the potential changed condition(s) in the environment if an alternative were to be implemented relative to the previous baseline environmental conditions of the environment before the alternative was implemented. For example, with respect to the “Potential Effects on the Aquatic Environment and Biota” criterion, the first measure (Relative loss of aquatic habitat and functions) would be applied to assess the change in aquatic habitat and functions as a result of implementing the alternative relative to the current baseline environmental conditions.

The Final (Amended) EA Report reflects this wording.


Page 4-39 – it should be noted that net effects can be positive. Reading the description of net effects leads the reader to believe that all net effects are negative.

Agreed – net effects can be either negative or positive. We note that positive net effects are mentioned in two places in Section 4.4 as follows:



11



Table 4-7 requires additional information. For example:

• Alternative D indicates that there would “low potential for displacement as routes would follow existing right of ways as much as possible.” When was it determined that routes for a New Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer would follow existing right of ways? This information is not contained in the description of this alternative to.

• Alternative D indicates that “if adverse geotechnical conditions exist, these conditions would be assessed and likely mitigated during design.” What is meant by “likely” mitigated. It should be clear as to whether mitigation will or will not occur.

• Alternative D indicates that it “Would be relatively reliable during operation Gravity system extremely reliable whereas a system that relies upon pumping is less reliable)”. What are the definitions of “relatively”, “extremely” and “less” reliable. How can an alternative that is described overall as “relatively” reliable be listed as an “advantage”?

• Alternative D indicates that “No change in the perception of the community would occur”. How was this determined?

• Alternative D indicates that “No negative change in property values (is) anticipated”. What is this based on? Please provide a more complete answer.

The description of Alternative D in Section 4.1.4, third paragraph was revised as follows:

“The new trunk sewer could be either a gravity-based system with lift stations or a pumping station/forcemain system or some combination thereof and would follow existing right of ways/utility corridors as much as possible”.

As these types of geotechnical conditions are typical and readily mitigated using well known construction methods, the word “likely” was deleted from Table 4-7 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.

The use of the terms “relative reliable”, “extremely reliable”, and “less reliable” were used within the context of the application of this specific criterion to the alternatives. With this in mind, the following provides definitions/context to the use of these terms:

“relative reliable” means that the alternative is considered reliable in comparison to the other alternatives being evaluated

“extremely reliable” and “less reliable” are terms specifically utilized within the context of Alternative D – Construct a New Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer. As a result, the use of these 2 terms is defined to one system or the other system being compared. In this case, a gravity sewer system is much more reliable then a pump station/forcemain system. Therefore, in comparison to the gravity sewer system, logically, the pump station/forcemain system is considered “less reliable”.

With these definitions in mind, Alternative D is listed as an advantage in comparison to the other 3 alternatives and recognizing that the system could be either a gravity sewer system (“extremely reliable”) or a pump station/forcemain (“less


12



reliable”), In other words, the term “relatively reliable” is applied to Alternative D instead of using either of the terms “extremely reliable” or “less reliable”. Therefore, no changes were made in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

With respect to Alternative D, no change in the perception of the community would occur because the new trunk sewer would be built underground, with only a limited number of visible surface structures/facilities.

This was determined based on the following rationale associated with the “Potential effects on property values” criterion: “Property directly affected by the proposed undertaking, or indirectly affected may incur a change in property value. Change in property value may result from the permanent disruption/loss of use and enjoyment of the property because of new facilities or operations associated with the proposed undertaking.”

As mentioned in Section 2.3.2.7, Evaluation of Alternatives of Supporting Document No. 5: Socio-Economic Assessment Report, no negative change in property values is anticipated for Alternative D based on the following rationale: potential adverse effects on property values would be minimized through the avoidance of built up areas as much as possible, reducing construction related effects on the environment, reducing short-term nuisance related effects through construction methods chosen, and reducing longer term nuisance related effects through effective facility operation and ongoing maintenance. Alternative D will have limited visible features/structures and property value impacts are anticipated only where property access or use is affected and hence the potential for adverse impact is extremely low. Table 4-7 of the Final (Amended) EA Report was augmented with additional rationale.

13



Section 4.2.2 indicates that one of the primary reasons for selecting the alternative of “Other Water Efficiency and Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Measures” is that it supports York and Durham Regions goal of wisely managing existing resources would be supported by reducing water use and inflow and infiltration into the existing sanitary sewer system, yet this was never a screening criteria that was used to determine the preferred undertaking as described in either Table 4-6 or Table 4-7. Please explain.

This statement was replaced with the following in the Final (Amended) EA Report:

“York and Durham Regions’ operation and maintenance requirements and costs associated with the YDSS would be reduced thus supporting the goal of wisely managing existing resources.”


Table 4-9 should be clear as to which office/region of the Ministry of the Environment provided comments during development of the EA.

We confirm that the comments were provided by staff from the Environmental Approvals and Assessment Branch via a meeting that was held on June 21, 2006 with the SEC project team. Notwithstanding this, as mentioned in the above responses, a new consultation chapter has been included in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report, therefore Table 4-9 has been removed in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report.


Section 4.4.3.4 states that “direct correspondence to all landowners or tenants where one or more of the “long list” alternative sewer routes traversed land…” Why is this information included in the section on “Alternatives To” when it clearly relates to alternative methods? As per previous comments on the Draft EA Report, all information on consultation should have been separated into a stand alone section so that repetition and misplacement of information could have been avoided.

As mentioned in the above responses, a new consultation chapter has been included in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report, therefore Section 4.4.3.4 has been removed in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report.


Section 4.5 states “This widely accepted EA practice is reflected in the various Class EA documents that had their beginnings in the 1980’s, which continue to be approved by the Minister.” This sentence confuses the

The statement should read as follows:

• “This widely accepted EA approach is reflected in the various Class EA Parent documents that had


14



reader as this is an individual EA, not a Class EA. Further, Class EAs are not approved by the Minister, unless the EA is referring to the parent document, or a Class EA which has been the subject of a Part II Order request in which case, this should be clearly stated in this section.

their beginnings in the 1980’s, which continue to be approved by the Minister.”

The intent of this statement was to emphasize that the process followed in the SEC Trunk Sewer EA to identify a preferred alternative is the same process reflected in the various Class EA Parent documents approved by the Minister thereby underscoring its credibility to review agencies and the public. The revised statement above was included in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

There has been no discussion provided in the EA document surrounding the assessment that was completed to determine where the accessory facilities (i.e. alternative methods) that are required as part of the SEC would be located. For example, no assessment of the alternative locations for the Odour Control Facility (OCF) and the potential impacts of the OCF to the environment has been included in the EA report.

Since alternative methods were defined as alternative sewer routes for constructing a new SEC trunk sewer Chapter 5 does not include a discussion of the ancillary facilities that would be required because the preferred route had not yet been selected, and hence the type and locations of these facilities along the route could not be identified.

However, the type and locations of associated facilities along the preferred route are documented in Chapter 6 of the Final (Amended) EA Report as part of providing a detailed description of the undertaking. With this in mind, it should be pointed out that associated facilities like the diversion chamber, connection chamber, etc. need to be situated in a specific location because of their function, and as a result; there are not alternative locations to be considered.

The rationale for specific locations associated with the ancillary facilities has been documented in Chapter 6 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Table 5-1, the comments associated with TRCA are incomplete. It is not sufficient to simply state that TRCA provided comments when specific comments are included that were provided by other Review Agencies.

As mentioned in the above responses, a new consultation chapter has been included in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report, therefore Table 5.1 has been removed in the Final (Amended) Final EA Report.


15



On page 5-16 the EA states “A rationale for each criterion to aid in their understanding is provided in Working Paper No.2, found in Supporting Document No.15”. This is not sufficient, as it does not meet the requirements of Section 4.3 of the EA Code of Practice (Documentation Requirements). The above statement is also inconsistent, as Table 4-6 lists the rationale for each criterion in the evaluation of alternatives. Please revise this section to provide a complete description of the rationale for each criterion.

As requested, the table included in Working Paper No.2 (found in Supporting Document No.15) that provides the rationale for the Screening Criteria has been included in Chapter 5 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Table 5-4 is confusing, as the fifth column provides multiple answers to the question asked. Please review and revise.

As requested, the table has been revised in the Final (Amended) EA Report.


On page 5-21, when describing the “key” reasons for selecting the tunnel option, the terminology used is, again, subjective and requires definition of terms such as “significantly”, “generally”, and “meaningful” to ensure that the EA planning process followed is clear to the reader.

The terms such as “significantly”, “generally”, and “meaningful” were used in describing the key reasons for selecting the tunnel option as a way to emphasize that, relative to the gravity-based option, the tunnel option has notable advantages. In other words, the comparison was used within the context of two items being compared (“tunnel option” vs “pumping stations/forcemain option”) thereby defining the terms automatically for the reader. To further emphasize this, “in comparison to” was added to the Favoured Conveyance System – Tunnel Option section of the Final (Amended) EA Report, before listing the key reasons.


Page 6-7 discusses the proposed Odour Control Facility (OCF) and indicates that there will be an “increased stack height”. Was a visual impact assessment on the stack height of the OCF completed? If so, where/what are the results. If not, this should be undertaken to determine potential affects, mitigation measures and net affects within the study area for the OCF.

The OCF and the proposed stack were considered as part of assessing potential adverse visual effects. In considering the potential adverse visual effects, mitigation measures were developed including consideration of appearance (Brick chimney), berming and full site landscaping. In addition, renderings were prepared of the OCF with these measures in place (2 viewpoints were selected: one from Altona Road and one from Cherrywood Avenue). The rendering were presented to the public at PIF # 4 and OCF


16



Neighborhood Session on November 5th, 2008.

As part of revising the location of the OCF to Townline Rd., additional renderings were prepared as part of considering the potential adverse visual effects. These were presented at the July 23rd PIF, and were included in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

Why is a site plan (Figure 6-3) included for the Corrosion Control Facility, but not for the other associated facilities? Please be consistent with respect to information provided to ensure that the EA planning process followed is clear to the reader.

Site plans for the major facilities (i.e., CCF (Shaft 13), OCF(Townline Rd. ROW), Meter Facility/Air Fan building (Shaft 6/7), Air Fan building (Shaft 4)) were included in the Final (Amended) EA Report.



On page 6-32, there is a sentence that states “The ring design is also very “strong”. What does “very strong” mean? Why is the word “strong” in quotation marks in the EA report?

The quotation marks on the words “very strong” should have been omitted.

The statement is provided from a technical viewpoint and is presenting the advantages of a ring design under compression conditions, such as in a tunnel. Although an important statement from a technical perspective, the entire sentence can be deleted from a lay reader’s perspective. Therefore, the entire sentence was deleted from the Final (Amended) EA Report.

On page 6-32 (and in other sections of the EA report), a statement indicating that “These considerations will be subject to a separate EA process being considered…” Please clarify whether this is a Class EA, individual EA, or Federal EA to ensure that the reader understands the process being followed as the requirements for each are different.

The reference to the “separate EA process” on page 6-32 refers to the Municipal Class EA. However, the entire sentence has been deleted in the Final (Amended) EA Report because the twinning of the primary trunk sewer to the Duffin Creek WPCP will be undertaken as a separate project and reference to this project is not necessary.


Section 6.2.2.2 states “A small single family residential development is located at the southwest corner of Altona Road and 3rd Concession…” Please provide an actual

The approximate number of homes in this development is 77. This was included in the Final (Amended) EA Report.


17



number of homes in this development as the term “small” is subjective.

Please be consistent when describing whether homes are on private or municipal water and wastewater services. In some cases it is indicated, in others it is not (see page 6-44 under City of Pickering for an example.)

Information has been added to the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Throughout section 6.3 the text indicates that the detailed description of the net effects analysis can be found in a number of technical supporting documents. Referring the reader to numerous supporting documents does not meet the requirements of Section 4.3 of the EA Code of Practice (Documentation Requirements). The main document should be sufficiently detailed so that it can stand on its own and provide a complete picture of the planning process and its conclusions.

The rationale for referring the reader to the Supporting Documents is to provide the reader with a summary of the net effects analysis carried out and the conclusions reached in Section 6.3.2 in such a way that both the technical and lay person can readily understand with further supporting technical information provided in the supporting documents.

Additional detail has been added in Chapter 6 of the Final (Amended) EA Report where appropriate and references to Supporting Documents have been minimized.


Why is there no discussion on the potential social effects, mitigation measures and net effects of the proposed undertaking in section 6.3?

The discussion of the potential social effects, mitigation measures and net effects of the proposed undertaking is provided under these more specific Social Environmental sub-headings (i.e., land use, socio-economic, noise/vibration/odour, agriculture) as conditions specify in relation to each route portion in the Final (Amended) EA Report.


There are a number of inconsistencies and repetition of information throughout section 6.3 with respect to the net effects analysis which makes the document difficult to follow. Please review and revise the entire section to ensure the planning process followed is clear to the reader. Some examples are provided below.

a. Throughout the section, the Potential

We have clearly and accurately summarized all of the potential effects, mitigation measures, and resulting net effects in Chapter 6 of the Final (Amended) EA Report. a. See introductory response above.


18



Effects not only describe the potential effects, but also the mitigation measures. Under the Mitigation Measures, the mitigation measures described in the Potential Effects are then repeated. Alternately, the Net Effects section describes both the potential effects and mitigation measures that had been previously described under each of those sub-headings. Some of the Net Effects sections do not describe net effects at all, they simply repeat the mitigation measures.

b. Throughout the section, the sections on ground and surface water over lap in a number of instances. Please ensure that the discussion is separated completely, or combined completely.

c. Under the heading “property requirements” there is no discussion of potential effects, mitigation measures and net effects.

d. On page 6-65, the discussion on potential effects for shaft 12 indicates that there is the possibility of construction of an adjacent subdivision. What is meant by “possible”? Has draft approval or approval of the subdivision been granted? This needs to be clear.

e. Page 6-68 – define what is meant by “minimal” tree removal along 14th Avenue.

f. Page 6-69 – under the heading “Net Effects” for the terrestrial environment the EA states “No change to the terrestrial environment is anticipated”. What about the impact of tree removal? What are the net effects? This section is not complete.

g. Page 6-71 under the heading

b. See introductory response above. c. See introductory response above. d. The subdivision is draft approved. e. In this case, “minimal” tree removal refers to 2

or 3 individual trees. f. Since the removal of 2 to 3 individual trees

would be off-set through compensation plantings, the net effect was stated as “no change to the terrestrial environment is anticipated.” However, the net effect could be stated as “the loss of 2 to 3 individual trees would be off-set through compensation plantings”. Agreed. This text was moved under “net effects”.

g. Agreed. This text was deleted because it is

19



Mitigation/Compensation Measure under Cultural it states that “…will result in no net effects…” This information should be in the section on Net Effects.

h. The discussion on shaft 11 indicates that the suggested spacing between shafts is 1500 m. The distance between shaft 11 and shaft 12 is more than 2200 m. Will this distance be safe? If a distance of 2200m is safe, why is the guideline provided by the Region’s operation staff 1500 m?

i. Why is a discussion on the proposed OCF provided on each shaft as a potential effect when it will not be located at each shaft? The information is repetitive.

j. The “net effects” discussion on

Noise/Vibration/Odour for shaft 11 does not describe the net effects.

k. Page 6-84 – what is meant by

“substantially eliminate”? This does not make sense, please rephrase.

l. The mitigation and net effects discussion are missing with respect to Noise/Vibration/Odour for shaft 9.

m. Page 6-87, under the heading cultural;

the EA states “there are no provincially designated built heritage features or municipally identified features within the vicinity of shaft 9” which leads the reader to believe there are no built heritage features, yet, the paragraph continues and states “Consequently, the only potential effect on built heritage would be construction vibration related effects”. How can there be effects on something that does not exist? The section goes on to discuss mitigation

already stated under “net effects”. h. The guideline of 1500 m is based on current

available equipment limitations, namely CCTV cable lengths, which is not a safety issue. The 1500 m spacing is a guideline and presents the preferred separation distance, but not the maximum spacing limit and can be modified. The 2200 m spacing is acceptable to York and Durham Regions.

i. There is the potential for odour effects at each shaft/facility location (i.e., are not just limited to the proposed OCF site). As a result, potential odour effects have been identified for each shaft/facility along with mitigation measures and resulting net effects.

j. This was a formatting issue. Please note that the Net Effects for Shaft 11 for Noise/Vibration/Odour are included in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

k. The word “substantially” has been removed from the Final (Amended) EA Report.

l. The title “Net Effects” for Shaft 9 on

Noise/Vibration/Odour was left out of the document, however, the content for “Net Effects” are included. The title “Net Effects” was included in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

m. We have checked this particular section and can confirm that there are no provincially designated built heritage features or municipally identified features in the vicinity of Shaft 9. Therefore, the text for mitigation/compensation measures has been revised to reflect this in the Final (Amended) EA Report.

20



measures and net effects to built heritage features that do not exist. Please ensure that the information throughout the section is accurate and complete.

n. The discussion on page 6-92 with respect to details on the OCF is not complete and does not meet the requirements of Section 4.3 of the EA Code of Practice.

o. Page 6-94 – the discussion on effects to the terrestrial environment is confusing as information on net effects is contained under the heading “potential effects” and “net effects” yet the effects discussed relate to different phases of the operation.

p. Page 6-94 – the discussion on Noise/Vibration /Odour states “There is no potential noise effect” yet a discussion on noise mitigation is included. If there are no potential effects, then why are mitigation measures necessary?

q. Page 6-96 – the first paragraph on the page states “During normal operations there will be a residual odour associated with the proposed OCF. However, the facility will be designed such that the effect on sensitive receptors nearby is minimized.” Please explain what this means as the discussion on potential effects does not indicate the potential for odours on sensitive nearby receptors.

n. The details associated with the proposed OCF

have been included in the Final (Amended) EA Report to meet the requirements of Section 4.3 of the EA Codes of Practice.

o. See introductory response above. p. See introductory response above. q. See introductory response above.

The general and specific mitigation measures need to be integrated into the previous section which describes the mitigation measures.

The general and specific mitigation measures summarized in Section 7 are also integrated in the previous Section 6. In other words, the mitigation/compensation measures are first described in Section 6 as part of the impact assessment of the preferred undertaking.

Section 7 addresses the commitments provided for


21



in Sections 6.4 and 6.5 in a comprehensive fashion because of their interdependence, which will make it easier for these important aspects to be incorporated into Detail Design and ultimately in the construction of the Preferred Undertaking.

The section on the enhancement plan should be a stand alone Chapter.

Since the approved ToR proposed a consolidated Mitigation and Enhancement Plan as part of the EA, we have documented the Enhancement Plan as a separate stand-alone Section (7.1.3) rather than a separate stand-alone chapter.


The section on monitoring and compliance should be a stand alone Chapter.

Since monitoring and compliance build on the mitigation and enhancement plan, they have been documented as subsequent stand-alone Sections (7.2.1 and 7.2.2) rather than in a separate stand-alone chapter.


Table 7-6 needs to be revised to meet the requirements of Section 4.3.5 of the EA Code of Practice (Commitments and Monitoring).

As requested, we have revised the table to document where the commitment is mentioned in the Final EA Report. Please see Table 7-2 of Chapter 7 in the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Section 9 still needs to be amended to include a commitment to notify and consult with the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch to obtain concurrence by the Director that any proposed amendment is either minor or major before proceeding with any proposed amendments.

It is agreed that the proponent will make a submission to the Director of the Ministry's Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch on a proposed amendment to the approved EA. The purpose of the submission will be to allow the Director to review the proposed amendment and provide concurrence on whether or not the proposed amendment constitutes a "minor" or a "major" amendment to the approved EA for the SEC trunk sewer. As requested Chapter 10.1 has been revised to include this commitment.


The Final EA document does not include a description of the consultation about the undertaking and the results of the consultation. Further, the Final EA document does not include a comprehensive summary of the consultation plan, the activities undertaken and results of the consultation

The consultation documentation provided in the Final (Amended) EA Report has been revised to reflect this comment. Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report includes a summary of consultation activities, stakeholders consulted, comments, concerns, proponents’ responses and


22



including significant comments raised and how they have been resolved. The Final EA does include very brief statements that consultation was undertaken for different components of the EA but the reader is referred to various, extensive background documentation for any substantive information about the consultation.

Because of the way in which it has been documented it is difficult and in some cases unclear if the requirements of the EAA, the approved ToR and the MOE Code of Practice have been fully met. It is recommended that a consultation addendum to the Final EA be prepared to address these fundamental issues. In addition, an overview of the consultation, as appropriate, needs to be included in the Executive Summary of the Final EA.

outstanding concerns.

Documentation of the consultation that was undertaken to address the concerns raised by the residents at the Neighbourhood Session 3 on November 27, 2007 (Appendix S, Consultation Round #4) does not clearly illustrate how the proponents addressed the issues. Further, documentation of the analysis of the four alternative locations for the Odour Control Facility (OCF) proposed to be sited at Shaft 6/7, and the additional consultation done with potentially affected members of the public is not presented in the Final EA.

As per your comment, Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report includes documentation of the consultation that was carried out with stakeholders regarding the proposed OCF (i.e, stakeholder meeting dates, PIFs, neighborhood information sessions, notifications sent, and issues raised as well as their consideration in the EA).


Documentation of stakeholder concerns, proponents’ responses and reasons why concerns could not be resolved is presented more than once in the Final EA resulting in duplication of information (e.g. Rouge Park Alliance comments in tables 4.9 and 5.1), which made it difficult to follow issues,

In response to your comment, Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report has been organized such that there is no duplication of information. Furthermore, the consultation activities/elements that were carried out in relation to the Odour Control Strategy (including the proposed OCF), including stakeholder concerns/comments raised,


23



responses and the outcomes. York and Durham Regions’ responses and why certain concerns could not be resolved has been included in Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.

Consultation on eight key milestones is presented in chapters 3 through 7 in the Final EA, however, documentation provided does not detail who was consulted, in what manner, on what aspect of the EA at what time, and ultimately, it is unclear if public input was obtained for each of the milestones prior to making decisions. As this is a commitment made in the ToR it is vital that it be clearly documented in the Final EA. For example, consultation on the first two milestones documented on page 3-15 indicates that a couple of comments were raised but no details are provided. Whereas, comments raised by the SeCAC on surcharging and cost sharing arrangements are mentioned with the conclusion that the purpose and rationale for the undertaking were confirmed.

As per your comment, Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report includes detail on who was consulted, in what manner, and on what aspect of the EA in relation to the key consultation milestones.


Consultation information presented on page 4-48 is repeated on page 5-13. An Aboriginal Consultation Protocol is referenced in June 2007, along with resources requirements and preparation of a Final Report for the EA document however, no details of any of these are provided in the Final EA (see page 5-25).

The consultation information provided in each section of the Final EA Report has been replaced in the Final (Amended) EA Report with Chapter 8. Details on how the First Nations Consultation Protocol was developed as well as First Nations comments/feedback received has been provided in Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


It is unclear why there is any First Nations consultation mentioned on page 5-62 as it only references the reader back to the table that appears on page 5-25.

The consultation information provided in each section has been replaced in the Final (Amended) EA Report with Chapter 8.


Dates of meetings are listed in the First Nations consultation details presented in Chapter 6 – Impact Assessment however the

The consultation information provided in each section has been replaced in the Final (Amended)


24



summary of comments that appear in Table 6-7 are not related to impact assessment.

EA Report with Chapter 8.

Table 6-8 provides a summary of Public comments however the table is incorrectly titled as Summary of First Nations Comments.

This mistake has been corrected in Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Specific First Nations communities that provided comments on the recommended enhancements summarized in Table 7-4 have not been identified and the proponents’ response makes a commitment to involve First Nations in the development of the Toronto Carrying Place East – Heritage Trail but an ongoing consultation plan has not been provided in the Final EA.

The specific First Nations that provided comments as noted in Section 2.4.3.6 of the Final EA Report were the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, Kawartha-Nishnawbe First Nation, and Huronne-Wendat First Nation. With respect to the Regions’ commitment to involving First Nations in the development of the Toronto Carrying Place East – Heritage Trail, a new commitment was added in the amended Table 7-2: “Provide First Nations with the opportunity to participate and provide comments/feedback regarding the development of the Toronto Carrying Place East – Heritage Trail.”


Significant issues raised and the proponents’ responses have not been clearly summarized in table format. For example, funding was raised as an issue by First Nations communities yet it is unclear in the Final EA what commitment has been made by the proponents.

With respect to the Regions’ commitment to provide financial support, the following commitment is included in Table 7-2 of the Final (Amended) EA Report: “Provide financial support to First Nations’ involvement in providing their expertise/input in relation to any significant cultural ‘finds’ that are encountered during construction.”


Details outlining how First Nations communities were identified and why the list of communities changed throughout the EA process are not provided in the Final EA.

The initial 6 First Nations contacted as part of Step 1 of the First Nations Consultation approach were notified because they were the ones contacted as part of SEC Trunk Sewer EA ToR step. The same list of First Nations were also consulted at the outset of Step 2 of the First Nations Consultation approach. The list of First Nations contacted in February, 2007 was expanded from 6 to 13 plus 2 Métis organizations based on the replacement of Chief Nahrgang with First Nations Engineering Services Limited (FNESL) as the First Nations facilitator/coordinator. In other words, FNESL’s recommended that the list be expanded based on


25



their experience and working relationships with First Nations. From August, 2007 onwards only the 13 First Nations were contacted. Based on comments received from the 2 Metis organizations, neither organization was interested in continuing to be involved (See Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report).

In accordance with the MOE Code of Practice the Final EA must provide a narrative description of the consultation activities, identify stakeholders consulted, and explain how First Nations communities were identified. It must also provide tables summarizing concerns raised, the proponents’ responses, resolutions reached and outstanding concerns. The Final EA must identify commitments made for ongoing consultation. While comments submitted and a summary of minutes of meetings are required in the supporting documentation it is not necessary to include transcripts.

Comment noted. The consultation documentation provided in the Final EA Report has been revised to reflect this comment. Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report includes a summary of consultation activities, stakeholders consulted (including First Nations), comments, concerns, proponents’ responses and outstanding concerns, as well as commitments made for ongoing consultation.


It has been a challenge to gain a full appreciation for the consultation undertaken because the information is located in many places. This has resulted in difficulty in reviewing the work done on the EA, determining the success of the consultation and the issues raised by the stakeholders and how they have been addressed. It should not be expected that the entire volumes of information be reviewed in order to fully realize the work done has fulfilled the regulatory requirements.

By organizing consultation information by the dates associated with the four rounds of consultation tracking the progression of the purposes and objectives of the activities was difficult.

The consultation documentation provided in the Final EA Report has been revised to reflect this comment. Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended)EA Report includes a summary of consultation activities, stakeholders consulted (including First Nations), comments, concerns, proponents’ responses and outstanding concerns, as well as commitments made for ongoing consultation.


26



Similarly, the use of inconsistent language when referencing consultation milestones and activities made it difficult to determine if the goals, objectives, and key milestones were met.

The Final EA is to provide a complete and traceable account of the EA process that includes a summary of consultation activities, stakeholders consulted, comments, concerns, proponents’ responses and outstanding concerns, as well as commitments made for ongoing consultation. Comments and responses should be presented in table format. Appendices should include technical studies, minutes, and written comments submitted, if applicable.

It is recommended that a consultation addendum to the Final EA be prepared to address these issues and an overview of the consultation, as appropriate, needs to be included in the Executive Summary of the Final EA.

The consultation documentation provided in the Final EA Report has been revised to reflect this comment. Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended)EA Report includes a summary of consultation activities, stakeholders consulted (including First Nations), comments, concerns, proponents’ responses and outstanding concerns, as well as commitments made for ongoing consultation.


Provide clarification on the timing of the Cherrywood and Cherrywood West communities bringing forward issues/concerns with proposed OCF location

Provide clarification as to why the Regions met with this stakeholder group as a separate meeting in November 2008.

Provide clarification as to why residents of Cherrywood and Cherrywood West were addressed as part of public consultation sections in the EA Report and Supporting Document No. 4.

Section 8.5 of Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report includes a summary of consultation undertaken regarding the proposed Odour Control Facility.

The residents of Cherrywood and Cherrywood West were consulted with as part of the general public during the SEC Trunk Sewer EA because they were not an established, separate group of stakeholders like a ratepayer association, NGO, or environmental group. With this in mind, as documented in the EA Report, York and Durham Regions held 4 Neighborhood Information Sessions during Fall/Winter 2007, one of which was dedicated to Neighborhood #3 and included invites and


27



attendees from Cherrywood and Cherrywood West.

In addition, the concerns raised by the residents of Cherrywood/Cherrywood West relating to the location of the proposed OCF were not raised until preparation of the Final SEC EA Report in the Fall of 2008. Therefore, since the timing of these concerns being raised occurred so late in the EA process and during the preparation of the Final EA Report, York and Durham Regions undertook a focused meeting with the concerned residents of these Cherrywood communities in an effort to address and respond to their comments/concerns to the best extent possible and prior to submission of the Final EA Report to the Minister.

Provide clarification on how consultation was undertaken with respect to each of the EA milestones as listed in the Approved SEC ToR and provide brief summary of how “consultation was carried out before key decisions were made in the EA process”.

A summary of how consultation was undertaken with respect to each of the EA milestones is included in Section 8.1 of Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


Review Commitments Table 7-6 (updated version in Supplemental binder) to ensure that all First Nations commitments are captured (reference back to First Nations sections of Consultation Addendum and in EA Report)

We have reviewed this table in light of potential First Nation commitments made by York and Durham Regions during the SEC Trunk Sewer EA process and have confirmed that the list of commitments is appropriate. With this in mind, the listed commitments reflect those presented and discussed with the various First Nations at the May and July 2008 Rama meetings. Not withstanding this, York and Durham Regions are willing to consider additional commitments that MOE identifies.


MOE EAAB Air and Noise Unit

The current version of the EA, despite comments on the Draft EA, continues to use the term “ambient noise” in misleading and conflicting ways, with over 40 instances to be found in the current version.

There are many instances of “ambient noise”

The final Amended EA has been revised where necessary as requested.


28



used in the EA where, in MOE terms, “sound level of the subject source” is what is meant. The MOE definition of “ambient sound” is in strong conflict with the usage of “ambient noise” in the EA, as the first refers to the exclusion of sound from the project, while the second specifically includes it.

There are several instances in which the EA states that the MOE noise limits apply to “ambient noise”, which is clearly incorrect.

There are several instances where “ambient noise” used in the EA means the same as the MOE term “ambient sound level”, and thus has a very different meaning from the most common usage of the term “ambient noise” in the EA.

MOE Central Region Technical Support Section (TSS)

Air Unit Comments

The basis for the TSS review of the reports is to ensure that proposed works follow Ontario Regulation 419/05, "Sound Level Limits For Stationary Sources In Class 1 & 2 Areas (Urban)" (NPC-205), "Sound Level Limits For Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural)" (NPC-232), and "Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning" (LU-131) mentions that Canadian National Railway Noise and Vibration Criteria were referenced. These should be mentioned within the IA Report.

Correct. We did follow Ontario Regulation 419/05, "Sound Level Limits For Stationary Sources In Class 1 & 2 Areas (Urban)" (NPC-205), "Sound Level Limits For Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural)" (NPC-232) and they should have been referenced in the IA Report. However, the "Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning" (LU-131) and the Canadian National Railway Noise and Vibration Criteria does not apply for this assessment.


Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)

TRCA has no objection in principle to the Preferred Alternative. Please consult the TRCA at detailed design to confirm permit requirements under Ontario Regulation 166/06.

The TRCA has concerns over the proposed location of Shaft 12 as showing in the final IEA report. Although the proponent has

Comment noted. The Regions of York and Durham will consult with TRCA during detailed design to confirm permit requirements under Ontario Regulation 166/06.

As stated on page 6-66 of the Final EA Report, “the location of Shaft 12 will consider the floodplain limits and the requirement to site the permanent access structure outside of these limits. This will be


29



indicated that the post construction access chamber will, if possible, be above the Floodline elevation, the TRCA would prefer Shaft 12 to be located outside of the Regulatory Floodline with a desired setback of 10 meters.

The figure indicating the location of Shaft 12 in the final IEA must include legal property boundaries, the current and proposed location of the creek and the top of the bank.

Consideration should also be given to the on-going design of 14th Avenue and the proposed subdivision to not only ensure coordination between the projects, but to express a preferred location for Shaft 12 prior to the 14th Avenue and subdivision designs being finalized.

resolved during detailed design in co-ordination with the land owner, York Transportation Department and with the full involvement of the TRCA.”

As noted in the TRCA comment, the final location of the permanent access structure will include preparation of drawings indicating the legal property boundaries and the current and proposed location of the creek and the top of the bank. As stated above, this is being coordinated with the land owner and associate subdivision development planning/development drawings.

Further, the SEC project team continues to coordinate with the on-going design of 14th Avenue, Donald Cousens Parkway and with the proposed subdivision landowner. The requirements of the TRCA will be communicated with the land owner and York Transportation Department, and the SEC project team will continue to finalize the location of the Shaft 12 permanent access during detailed design and subsequent approval process.

The discussion provided on potential wetland monitoring presented in section 7.2.1.2 of Supporting Document No. 7 “Natural Environment Impact Assessment of the Preferred Alternative Method Report” requires expansion to provide more detail on:

Identification of specific features or functions within the wetlands;

How the wetland features and functions may be affected by the trunk sewer works; and

Potential mitigation options presented in the context of the particular sensitivities identified.

Section 7.2.1.2 deals with specifically monitoring strategy to address groundwater inputs to wetlands. Wetlands identified for monitoring include indicators of surface water – groundwater interactions, such as groundwater indicator species, organic substrates, vulnerable elevations (i.e., corresponding with aquifers), and headwater functions. Further analysis of features and functions will be applied through the EMP. Potential groundwater effects to wetlands are discussed shaft by shaft in Section 5 of the Natural Environment Impact Assessment Report. At this stage in design, mitigation for any observed water-taking will include supplementation of soil moisture through a perforated pipe.


Within section 5.2.6 of Supporting Document No. 7 – “Natural Environment Impact

Further review of construction at Whites Road Maintenance Chamber (MC) indicates that

The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’

30



Assessment of the Preferred Alternative Method Report”, it is proposed that “water may be periodically released into the wetland surrounding the compound of the Whites Road Maintenance Chamber.” The TRCA received a response to this concern, originally expressed during the review of the draft IEA submission and the proponent’s response to date is not satisfactory. At this stage, there is not enough information provided to deem the periodic discharge of water to this natural feature ecologically acceptable. The volumes of water proposed for discharging to this feature are not given nor is the manner in which this additional water will impact water levels within the wetland. There are known ecological sensitivities associated with this wetland feature including the presence of breeding amphibians.

In addition, the risks of temperature sensitivities, vegetation decline and water quality problems, among others, are possible should discharge be permitted to enter this feature. The TRCA maintains that an alternate receptor is to be used in place of the wetland. However, should the Regions continue to propose the use of this receptor, they must adequately demonstrate how all potential impacts will be mitigated.

The proponent is required to confirm that no new archaeological sites have been registered within or near the study area since November 25, 2004 – the date of the baseline data utilized for this study.

construction mitigation (i.e., sealed shaft technology) can eliminate the need for water-taking due to construction. As a contingency measure, any water resulting from water –taking will be allowed to flow downstream through the sewer tunnel to Shaft 4 (tunnel construction will proceed from Shaft 4 in the east to the Whites Rd. MC, prior to construction of the Whites Rd. MC), where it will be pumped and discharged to Pine Creek, as identified as the discharge location for Shaft 4. Cumulative discharge impacts of the Whites Rd. MC (up to 300 l/min.; see Section 5.2.6.2 of the Natural Environment Impact Assessment Report) and Shaft 4 (up to 300 l/min; Section 5.3.1.2 of the Natural Environment Impact Assessment Report) are within the ecologically acceptable water dispersion rate of 600 L/min. Furthermore, design should establish a maximum output of 300 L/min. from both shaft compounds to provide outflow within the ecologically acceptable dispersion rate.

Since it has been determined that no further archaeological assessment work is required at any of the construction sites based on Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments completed, there is no need to confirm whether or not any new archaeological sites have been registered within or near the study area. In addition, the Ministry of Culture in their comments on the Final EA Report did not request this follow up work.

response.

There are two records of redside dace in Petticoat Creek from 1954. The Minister of Natural Resources is expected to make a decision on whether or not to uplist the

Redside dace were collected from two locations in the Petticoat Creek watershed during a synoptic survey conducted in June 1954. One of these historic redside dace sites was in a watercourse


31



species to endangered status by mid to late February 2009. If the decision is favourable, redside dace will become a regulated species under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, in which case the Ministry will need to make a determination about whether the act will apply to Petticoat Creek. Please contact MNR Aurora District for further clarification.

that ends more than 2.5 km from the preferred SEC trunk sewer route. The second historic site was located approximately 3 km downstream from the preferred SEC trunk sewer route.

At meeting held on January 28, 2009 with TRCA, TRCA staff recognized that redside dace had not been captured from the historic locations even though fish collections had been made since 1954. TRCA staff have informed MNR and DFO regarding the historic collection of redside dace and informed the SEC project team that MNR and DFO would determine how relevant species at risk legislation will apply to Petticoat Creek.

Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC)

Lands managed by The Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) will be impacted by the proposed undertaking. As such, the ORC will require completing ORC’s “MEI Class Environmental Assessment Process” as part of their due diligence. There are multiple gaps, in the IEA, where the information that would be required in ORC’s Class EA, has either not been provided, sufficiently articulated or circulated in the IEA.

ORC’s Class EA’s undertaking is also incorrectly articulated. In Section 8.2.3, of the IEA, an easement on ORC managed lands is not a Category “A”. It is a Category “B” as stated under Figure 2.2 in the Category Listing Matrix of ORC’s “MEI Class Envrionmental Assessment Process”.

Due to the location and size of area to be impacted by the YDSS, it would be diligent to elevate this to a Category “B” under ORC’s

At a meeting held on March 20, 2009 with ORC, it was agreed that Section 8.2.3 would be revised in order to satisfy ORC’s requirement under the MEI Class Environmental Assessment Process. The revised wording will read ; “Permanent and temporary easement agreements will be required for the portions of Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) managed lands from Townline Road to Liverpool Road in the City of Pickering (hydro corridor) and for specific lands identified along 14th Avenue in the Town of Markham. For these properties, easement rights from ORC will be required. Approval is required under the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure (MEI) Class Environment Assessment Process (2008) in which ORC as an agency is authorized to act on its behalf. Contact and discussions with ORC staff have been undertaken regarding these easements and the specific ORC approval requirements. Once all requirements have been satisfied and ORC has approved the IEA as a deferral to the MEI Class Environmental Assessment Process, a Declaration Order will be completed and returned to ORC.

Issue is outstanding.

32



Class EA.

The IEA has indicated that consultation has been completed with the municipalities, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the local Conservation Authority. Although the Conservation Authority’s comments have been included in the IEA, no comments were received by the OMNR and thus, have not been included in the IEA. As the OMNR is a major stakeholder in completing ORC’s Class EA, a “no comment” is generally considered insufficient for a response. However, because there were multiple rounds of consultation, the proponent can provided all the letters, with the address and name of who was circulated at the MNR, for each round as justification and proof. Not just a list of who was circulated. ORC requires the documentation

As stated in Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report, as well as in Supporting Document No. 4, extensive consultation was carried out with the TRCA during the SEC Trunk Sewer EA process. At a meeting held on March 20, 2009 with ORC, the proponent provided digital copies of correspondence to the MNR, As such, ORC indicated that they are satisfied that this issue has been addressed.


33



to backup that the MNR and CA was circulated.

Part of ORC’s Class EA due diligence is to complete, at a minimum, a Stage I Archaeological Assessment and a Phase I ESA. In addition, should these reports require further work, that would also need to be undertaken. Neither of these reports are present in the IEA.

Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments were completed as part of the SEC Trunk Sewer EA and have been provided to the Ministry of Culture for review and sign-off. The Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment determined that no further archaeological assessment work is required at any of the construction sites (shafts, compounds, and related facilities).


Ministry of Culture

Archaeological Resources:

We are generally satisfied with the level of assessment for both built heritage features and archaeological resources as completed thus far in this project and reflected in the final Environmental Assessment Final Report. Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessments by licensed archaeologists related to this sewer project have been carried out and forwarded to the Ministry of Culture (MCL) for technical review.

The MCL Archaeological Review Officer has currently not reviewed these assessment reports at this time however.

Once the review of the assessment reports are completed, the MCL Archaeological Review Officer will provide an acceptance or rejection letter to the licensed archaeologist and the proponent based on compliance to Ministry archaeological assessment standards and guidelines.

The Stage 2 report had indicated that if there are any land-disturbing activities or site alterations in the vicinity of the Reesor Mennonite Meeting House and Reesor Pioneer Cemetery along Townline Road north of Steeles Avenue, a Stage

Chapter 6 of the Final (Amended) EA Report includes the proposed mitigation measures identified by MCL as mentioned in the Stage 2 report.


34



3 archaeological assessment by a licensed archaeologist will be required. If any archaeological features or unmarked human burials are unexpectedly identified in the project area at any time, the proponent or person discovering the resource will cease alteration of the site and retain a licensed archaeologist to carry out archaeological field work, in compliance with sec. 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Built Heritage Features:

The impact assessment related to the short term vibration–related effects to built heritage features is appropriate. We concur with the mitigation strategy components as proposed in the EA during construction, which is stated as follows:

1. Determination of the extent of construction vibration levels as part of preparing the Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Plan.

2. Complete building/structure pre-construction of surveys for all buildings within 100 m of each shaft compound and 25m of the tunnel route, and this will include identified Ontario Heritage Act “listed or designated” built heritage properties prior to construction.

3. Implement changes to construction methods to mitigate vibration effects, where identified based on vibration monitoring.

All vibration impact assessment reports related to built heritage features are to be forwarded to the Ministry of Culture for our records, as well as to specifically the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHC) of the Municipality where the

As requested, all vibration impact assessment reports related to built heritage features will be forwarded to the MCL for their records, as well as to specifically the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHC) of the municipality where the built heritage feature is geographically located.


35



built heritage feature is geographically located.

We are therefore satisfied with the Environmental Assessment Final Report if the following mitigation strategies and precautions for cultural heritage resources are carried out during project implementation.

Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure

Executive Summary, and Ch. 1,2,3,4,5,6:

With the exception of Section 3.3.4.1, all references made to the “Places to Grow Act” should be replaced with “Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.”

Chapter 3 – Section 3.3.4.1 Provincial Planning Context

Page 3-9 - The population and employment numbers for the Region of York over the next 25 years are not consistent with the numbers in the Growth Plan. Please clarify the sources of those figures. Schedule 3 in the Growth Plan states a population growth for the Region of York of 740,000 and employment growth of 390,000 over 30 years (2001 – 2031).

These numbers were extracted from the Purpose and Rationale for the Undertaking document (Supporting Document #2) prepared for the SEC EA, which was developed in 2005 and reflected early ‘Planning for Tomorrow’ forecasts for York Region. However, we confirm that our analysis was based on the population and employment growth numbers consistent with the Growth Plan.


Supporting Document #1 – Ministers Conditions Report

Section 3

Page 5: The employment number for York Region of 800,000by 2031 is incorrect and should be replaced with 780,000.

Comment noted. The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’ response.

Supporting Document #2

Section 2.5.3 The Growth Plan for the

As mentioned above, these growth numbers were developed in 2005 and reflect early ‘Planning for Tomorrow’ forecasts for York Region. However, we wish to confirm that our analysis was based on the


36



Greater Golden Horseshoe:

Page 20: The Growth Plan was released on June 16, 2006

Page 20, second paragraph, second sentence: please replace “The Growth Plan gives the government power to designate growth plan areas.” with Places to Grow Act gives the government the power to designate growth plan areas throughout the province and to develop growth plans for those designated areas.”

Section 2.5.4. Growth Forecast:

Page 23: The population and employment numbers for the Region of York over the next 25 years are not consistent with the numbers in the Growth Plan. Please clarify the source of those figures. Schedule 3 in the Growth Plan states a population growth for the Region of York of 740,000 and employment growth of 390,000 over 30 years (2001 – 2031).

population and employment growth numbers consistent with the Growth Plan.

Supporting Document #3

Section 3.3.3. Places to Grow Act

Page 7 second last paragraph:

“Markham City Centre” should be replaced with “Markham Centre”

Page 8:

MPIR should be replaced with Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden

Comments noted. The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’ response.

37



Horseshoe was released on June 16, 2006

Page 9:

The map “Places to grow designations” is taken from the Proposed Growth Plan and is therefore not current. Please replace the map with Schedule 4 in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Hydro One

Please ensure at this stage that all required documentation and drawings on final designs and construction work for the project relevant to mitigating impact to Hydro One Transmission Facilities including Rights of Way are sent to Hydro One Real Estate Management.

All required documentation will be provided to the designated contact.


FEDERAL AGENCIES

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Based on this review no Federal EA triggers were identified. Department of Oceans and Fisheries Indicated that it is going to review the technical documents provided with the EA and Transport Canada has asked for technical information on the water crossings including works that tunnel under watercourses. The proponents can complete the applications and submit these to the specified Transport Canada contact.

As requested, the technical information on the water crossings including works that tunnel under watercourses will be provided to the specified TC contact as per the Navigable Water Protection Act application and guide.


MUNICIPAL AGENCIES

City of Pickering

Although the preferred alternative to the undertaking is to construct a new SEC Trunk Sewer in combination with other water efficiency and inflow/infiltration reduction measures, the Final EA Report focuses almost entirely on the trunk sewer, with very little detail on the measures. The City of

As mentioned in Chapter 5 of the Final (Amended) EA Report, the following statements illustrate York Region’s commitment to the “other water efficiency and inflow/infiltration reduction measures” alternative:

York Regional Council considered an enhanced


38



Pickering is concerned that this alternative will be neglected or not implemented as control over the sanitary sewers in York Region is a local municipality jurisdiction not a Regional responsibility. The EA compliance monitoring program needs to include the water efficiency and inflow/infiltration reduction measures in order to report on the commitment to and effectiveness of this program.

ten-year water efficiency program at its June 13, 2007 meeting and approved the Water Efficiency Master Plan Update on June 21, 2007. The enhanced ten-year water efficiency program has $41.7 million allocated to it.

York Region approved the I/I program at its April 4, 2007 meeting with an allocation of $24 million in capital funding.

As a result of these York Region Council approvals, implementation of the “other water efficiency and inflow/infiltration reduction measures” alternative will take place without the need for a specific commitment in the Final EA Report.

The report identifies proposed haul roads and indicates that some haul roads do not meet the structural road base required for use as a haul road. It mentions that they will be upgraded in order to provide suitable strength and where possible upgrades will be completed prior to construction of the new SEC Trunk Sewer. The co-proponents committed to undertake a structural adequacy review of the proposed haul roads to be available in spring 2008. The Final EA report does not indicate the roads requiring to be upgraded and the extent of the upgrades, and the proposed haul roads have not been approved by the City, as staff have not received the assessment reports. The City recommends that the Minister not approve the EA until the City advises that all aspects of the haul roads have been accepted by the City of Pickering.

The EA Report page 6-30 and Figure 6.18 provide a high level presentation of the proposed haul roads, as stated in the City of Pickering comment. Further detailed evaluation has been completed and the following documents have been submitted to the City of Pickering:

Haul Road Design Package – 2 sets of 27 Drawings Submitted to the City of Pickering on December 23, 2008

Haul Condition Assessment Report for the Southeast Collector, prepared by Conestoga Rovers Associates (CRA) – Submitted to the City of Pickering on January 21, 2009

It should be noted that the proposed haul roads have been presented and reviewed with City staff as well as with Pickering Area Councillors. Changes to the haul roads have been made to address the comments made as a result of these reviews, comments and meetings. The requested detailed haul road documents and drawing package have now been submitted to the City of Pickering. It is suggested that the previous reviews, comments and meetings with the City, as well as the


39



submission of further documents and design drawings, are sufficient to address the haul road issues at this point in the EA process.

The co-proponents have committed to provide temporary traffic lanes on Liverpool Road north of Finch Avenue during the construction and use of Shaft 2 located at the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Finch Avenue. The additional lanes require a temporary easement on private property in order to construct. The provision of the 3 lanes during shaft construction and 4 lanes after shaft construction are critical for the operation of Liverpool Road as it is a major access road to the community including Pine Ridge Secondary School.

Correct, the co-proponents have committed to provide temporary traffic lanes on Liverpool Road north of Finch Avenue during the construction and use of Shaft 2. This includes provision of the 3 lanes during shaft construction and 4 lanes after shaft construction. Property required to construct the temporary traffic lanes has been obtained and design drawings prepared for this construction work. The design and construction details will be reviewed with the City of Pickering as part of the approval process following completion of the EA process.


The City recommends that the Minister of Environment require the co-proponents to re-evaluate the location of the Odour Control Facility outside of Pickering and that this re-evaluation include public meetings. Should the Minister decide that the proposed location of the Odour Control Facility and Meter Chamber is acceptable and it is approved, the City requests a condition of approval to include enhanced mitigation measures over and above landscaping and on-site berming. Other visual screenings either on Cherrywood Avenue or in the hydro corridor would be required, as well as architectural control and site plan approval.

As stated in Section 8.5.5 of Chapter 8 of the Final (Amended) EA Report, following the May 13, 2009 PIF, further comments were received from the public and other stakeholders opposing the proposed OCF location at Shaft 9 along the east side of York-Durham Line within the Durham Region. As a result, the requirement to relocate the proposed OCF within York Region was confirmed. Therefore, the potential OCF site locations were again re-assessed by the technical disciplines, with a particular focus on those potential sites within York Region.

The result of carrying out this re-assessment was the recommended OCF site location on the west side of York-Durham Line (adjacent to Shaft 9), within the road allowance owned by York Region.

Please refer to Appendix F of the Final (Amended) EA Report for further detail related to the identification and assessment of potential OCF site locations (including locations outside of the City of Pickering).


40



City of Toronto

Section 8.1 of the report entitled “Municipal Approvals” lists the Town of Markham, City of Pickering and Utility Approvals as bodies though which approval would be required for the undertaking. The preferred alternative has a section of the trunk sewer that is planned to be located in the right-of-way of Pickering Town Line, south of Steeles Avenue East. The entire right-of-way of Pickering Town Line south of Steeles Avenue East is owned by the City of Toronto. There is a maintenance agreement with the City of Pickering for this road, but it is owned by the City of Toronto. Consequently, we would like a section added to the ESR under section 8.1 that lists the City of Toronto as an approval authority for that section of sewer that is proposed for Pickering Town Line south of Steeles Avenue East.

If the City of Toronto is able to provide sufficient documentation to conclusively support its claim of ownership of the entire right-of-way, the proponents would apply for all required approvals to allow the construction of the SEC sewer on the Townline ROW.


One longstanding concern which the City of Toronto and others have had with this project is with York Region's refusal to treat the Big Pipe project as a single undertaking with regard to the EA process, which it clearly is. Over the many years that this project has been undertaken by York Region the approvals process has been inappropriately broken up into smaller components or piecemealed so as to avoid scrutiny as the very substantial undertaking that it is.

York and Durham Regions are following the directions set out in accordance with the Minister of the Environment’s October 1, 2004 letter.


A second concern which the City of Toronto has is with York Region's neglect in its obligation to maintain its existing sewer line which is being twinned with the new Big Pipe proposal. Internal monitoring of the existing sewer line confirms that a lack of maintenance has resulted in very substantial leakage of existing area groundwater into the current sewer line. This existing area groundwater, once it seeps into the sewer is

The YDSS is operated and maintained under ISO standards and internal monitoring of the SEC portion of this system undertaken to date indicates that there is no evidence of high infiltration occurring on the existing SEC trunk sewer system. Further, it should be noted that the new SEC trunk sewer will provide a degree of redundancy that will allow planned maintenance of the existing SEC trunk sewer that will ensure its long term life


41



transported to the sewage treatment plant. expectancy.

The City also has concerns that legitimate alternatives to both the proposed route of the pipe and alternatives to the necessity for the pipe altogether, have not been adequately canvassed. Firstly, the City of Toronto has concerns with the proposed route of the pipe in that it is proposed to be routed through existing groundwater aquifers which immediately raises two specific problems. Firstly, the construction process will require significant dewatering of the construction area which will serve to temporarily lower the water table within the construction zone for the duration of the construction.

Secondly, the introduction of the new pipe itself will create the opportunity for interbasin groundwater transfer which is currently being caused by the existing sewer pipe.

As stated in the Final SEC Trunk Sewer EA Report, the alignment of the preferred trunk sewer route is situated in over 90% till thus avoiding groundwater aquifers. As a result, it has the least potential dewatering of all routes. Appropriate mitigation measures such as use of Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM), sealed shaft technology, etc. will be employed in areas where aquifers will be intercepted. Minimal water taking is anticipated only at one location (Shaft 13) along the preferred route for a temporary 4 month period. The Hydrogeological/Geotechnical Impact Assessment of the Preferred Alternative Method Report concludes that there will be no negative net effects associated with temporary water taking on groundwater users or surface water baseflow.

Intrabasin transfer is not considered to be an issue for the SEC EA project. In this regard, the water supply for the majority of York Region is Lake Ontario based. The return of wastewater via the YDSS (Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer) to the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant for treatment and release to Lake Ontario does reflect the spirit and intent of the Great Lakes Charter. As a result, the new trunk sewer will not create the opportunity for increased intrabasin groundwater transfer.


The City's second main concern regarding the consideration of alternatives is the lack of consideration which seems to have been given to the necessity for the Big Pipe at all. Other jurisdictions have had substantial success with modern and enhanced treatment options for sewage which result in more useable water being reclaimed through the treatment process.

The SEC Trunk Sewer EA was carried out in accordance with the Minister of the Environment approved SEC Trunk Sewer EA Terms of Reference including the alternatives to the undertaking that were to be considered and assessed.


42



The following City of Toronto Council requests to the Ministry of Environment were adopted in October of 2005 and remain valid and current.

1. The City of Toronto opposes the current proposed design and construction of the York Durham Sanitary Sewer trunk services and associated de-watering practices.

2. The City of Toronto requests that the Province of Ontario, through the Minister of

Environment:

(a) defers approval of the l9th Avenue sewer which traverses the Oak Ridge Moraine and sensitive aquifers and that alternatives and local sewage solutions be explored as per the Minister of Environment's list of conditions; and;

(b) refer the Big Pipe Project to the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for an assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

3. The City of Toronto requests the Federal Minister of the Environment and Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to issue an order to stop the massive de-watering and require Fisheries Act authorizations; and that a full Federal Environmental Assessment for current and proposed construction related to the York Durham Sanitary Sewer be conducted for all sections of the project; and that alternative ways of providing sanitary services be examined without contravening the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, without massive groundwater removal from beneath the watersheds flowing south from

1. In terms of the SEC Trunk Sewer EA, consideration has been given to the potential effects of water taking and appropriate mitigation measures to address the potential effects. Please see our response to your comment above regarding construction water taking.

2 (a) The 19th Avenue sewer received all appropriate approvals and has now been successfully constructed.

2(b) The SEC Trunk Sewer EA was carried out through a coordinated EAA/CEAA approvals process. With this in mind, the Federal project description was circulated to Federal agencies with no triggers being identified.

3. As mentioned in response 2b), the SEC Trunk Sewer EA, was carried out through a coordinated OEAA/CEAA approvals process. With this in mind, the Federal project description was circulated to a number of Federal agencies (including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) with no triggers being identified.


43



the Oak Ridges Moraine into Toronto, and without installing trunk sewers directly into underground aquifers.

Town of Markham

Based on our review of the documents provided, the Town endorses the York Region Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer final Environmental Assessment report subject to the following conditions:

a. Coordination of all engineering works and traffic control impacts, in consultation with Town engineering staff.

b. Obtaining site plan control approval from the Town for any permanent structure, including the proposed corrosion control facility.

c. Addressing any impacts to Town property, such as easements across Town parkland or road allowances to the satisfaction of the Town.

d. Provision of a Well monitoring and mitigation plan and a public contact/coordination process for dealing with any impacts on area wells.

As requested by the Town of Markham:

a. All engineering works and traffic control impacts will be coordinated with Town engineering staff as part of detailed design following EA approval.

b. Site plan control approval for any permanent structures, including the proposed corrosion control facility will be obtained from Town engineering staff as part of detailed design following EA approval.

c. Any impacts to Town property, such as easements across Town parkland or road allowances to the satisfaction of the Town will be addressed as part of detailed design following EA approval.

d. The monitoring that is committed to during the design phase of the sewer construction includes a Baseline Monitoring Program, a Water Taking Monitoring Program, and a Contingency Monitoring Program. York-Durham Regions have developed a Protocol For Management and Settlement of Claims Related to Private well Interference and Associated Damages Due to Construction Activities (Transportation and Works Committee, February 2, 2005 Report to the Commissioner of Transportation and Works).


44


45


e. The Environmental Enhancement Program be coordinated with the Town of Markham and the Rouge Alliance.

f. Odour Control Facility required in easterly section of corridor and currently proposed in the vicinity of Altona Road, be located and designed to mitigate any impact on area residents.

g. That the Rouge Park Implementation Task Force Final Report dated November 25, 2008 (draft document released for comment by Markham Council on December 16, 2008) be reviewed by the Region of York and Ministry of the Environment for consideration relative to the proposed enhancement program for Bob Hunter Park.

h. Construction access and traffic should be limited to the proposed haul roads shown on Figure 6.18 from the Final EA Report.

i. Construction traffic through the Box Grove community should be avoided; wherever possible. Detailed traffic control plans will need to be provided to the Town in advance of construction including detailing ingress/egress plans for all construction shaft locations, particularly Shaft 13 in Box Grove.

j. Approval from the Town of Markham will be required should the contractor

e. We confirm that implementation of the

Environmental Enhancements will be coordinated with the Town of Markham.

f. The proposed Odour Control Facility was re-located to the west side of York-Durham Line (adjacent to Shaft 9), within the road allowance owned by York Region.

g. The enhancement program for Bob Hunter Memorial Park will include review of the Rouge Park Implementation Task Force Final Report dated November 25, 2008 as part of detailed design following EA approval.

h. Construction access and construction traffic will be limited to the proposed haul roads shown on Figure 6-26 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.

i. Detailed traffic control plans will be provided to the Town in advance of construction as part of detailed design following EA approval.

j. Approval from the Town of Markham will be obtained for extension of any construction activities beyond the Town’s


46


wish to extend any construction activities beyond the Town’s standard working hours.

k. The Town would like to review the final mitigation measures proposed for the construction of the SEC trunk sewer through Markham prior to the commencement of construction.

l. The Town may request that a formal presentation be made to Council by the Region briefing the Town on the final outcome and recommendations of the IEA.

standard working hours.

k. Final mitigation measures proposed for the construction of the SEC trunk sewer through Markham will be provided to Town engineering staff prior to the commencement of construction.

l. If requested, a formal presentation be made to Council by the Region briefing the Town on the final outcome and recommendations of the EA.

TABLE 2

PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY TABLE

Table 2. Public Comment Summary Table Proposal: York-Durham Sewage System Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Environmental Assessment Proponent: Regions of York and Durham

Summary of Comments Proponents’ Response Status

ODOUR CONTROL FACILITY - LOCATION

Appropriateness of proposed Odour Control Facility location.

(Approximately 200 times.)

A re-assessment was carried out that recommended the OCF site location be located on the west side of York-Durham Line (adjacent to Shaft 9), within the road allowance owned by York Region (see Volume II – Appendix F of the Final (Amended) EA Report).


Why can’t the OCF be placed in York Region?


In response to feedback from the public, the OCF is now located in York Region on the west side of the York Durham Line, adjacent to the road.


Why can’t the OCF be placed near the Beare Road landfill?


This Option was not selected as the recommended OCF site for the following reasons:

• Natural Environmental (Terrestrial and Aquatic) – Option 12 will require construction of an air conveyance pipe. Construction of the air conveyance pipe requires two open cut crossings at Petticoat Creek and a tributary to Petticoat Creek, which will result in a potential change to the baseflow to the creek during construction and disrupt aquatic habitat thus representing a disadvantage for all options except Option 4 (Shaft 5) and Option 5 (Shaft 6/7). Further, construction of the air conveyance pipe south along Townline Road and westerly along the existing SEC trunk sewer alignment will pass through identified natural features with potential effects due to proximity to these features.

• Technical (Number of construction sites) – Option 12 would require new or additional construction sites or sewer components, compared to Option 5 (Shaft 6/7).

• Technical (Operations and Maintenance) – Option 12 can not be co-located with proposed construction shaft(s)/buildings along the proposed SEC trunk sewer and does not reduce potential construction effects or improve future operation and maintenance requirements compared to Option 5 (Shaft 6/7). The construction of the OCF at Shaft 6/7 allows the OCF and meter facility to be co-located.

• Social Environment (Socio-Economic) - Selection of an OCF site other than Option 5 (shaft 6/7) would require construction activity at an additional site. Additional construction will increase potential for disruption of existing residences, community and recreational features. Option 12 is located in close proximity to sensitive receptors (minimum 65 m and seven residences less than 250 m), and therefore has a disadvantage due to noise and perceptible vibration that can be an issue at these locations during


1

Table 2. Public Comment Summary Table


construction.

• Social Environment (Noise/Vibration/Odours) – Option 12 would require construction of additional underground piping (air conveyance pipe). This air conveyance pipe will be under positive pressure, which gives a potential for odour emissions at the pipe joints. Option 12 (south of CPR on the west of Townline Road and east of Beare Road), are all closer than the distance (300 m) between the Cherrywood West sensitive receptor and Option 5 (Shaft 6/7). At less than 300 m, this options would possibly result in increased potential effects at the sensitive receptors than the sensitive receptors for Option 5 (Shaft 6/7), given the same design parameters.

• Financial – Shaft 6/7 is most favourable financially, due to potential to co-locate facilities thereby combining separate construction compounds, site servicing and related mitigation measures resulting in reduced overall costs both during construction and for future operations and maintenance.

The location of the OCF was decided in 2004 and alternative OCF locations were never considered.

(Approximately 1 time.)

The OCF was not decided in 2004. In 2004 the Southeast Collector Class EA was changed from a Schedule C MEA Class EA to an Individual EA (IEA). The Terms of Reference (February 2006) for the Southeast Collector was subsequently prepared and then approved by the MOE. The approved Terms of Reference required that alternatives to the undertaking be reviewed, such as construct a new wastewater treatment plant, inflow/infiltration/water efficiency, store and attenuate, Store and truck or a new trunk sewer. The need for an OCF to mitigate potential odour effects was not identified nor was not decided upon or predetermined in 2004.

The assessment of alternative OCF site locations is documented in Volume II - Appendix F of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


The Odour Control Facility should not be built in a Greenbelt area/Agricultural Preserve because this site is in violation of the intent and purpose of the Greenbelt Act.


The EA assessment of alternative sewer routes resulted in recommendation of the sewer alignment through the Greenbelt and the Agricultural Preserve. New sewage infrastructure is permitted within the Greenbelt under Section 4.2.1 of the Greenbelt Plan. The proposed OCF is considered as a land use that is an integral part of the proposed SEC Trunk Sewer and as such it is permitted under Section 4.2.2 (Paragraph 1) of the Greenbelt Plan.

In addition, Section 4.3.3 the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) which provides more specific direction for lands within the Rouge Duffins Agricultural Preserve specifically permits the extension of municipal infrastructure “to facilitate an increase in the capacity of the York Durham Sanitary Sewer”. The Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) and the policies of this Plan take precedence over the Greenbelt Plan (Order-In-Council 208/20-05) as provided for under The Greenbelt Act, 2005 (Section 17).


The new Odour Control Facility will negatively affect property values.

The Regions are not aware of evidence that property values will decrease due to proximity to the OCF or other facilities related to the SEC project. Both York and Durham Regions have extensive experience with building and maintaining trunk sewer pipe networks, pumping stations, wastewater treatment facilities and other sewer related structures, including mitigation and treatment of odours from sewage operations. The Regions are not aware of any situations where the presence or operation of sewage infrastructure has had


2



(Approximately 80 times.) any negative impact on the property value of adjoining properties or communities. If concerns are raised, it is the co-proponents’ practice to work with residents and property owners to address these concerns.

ODOUR CONTROL FACILITY – ODOUR EMISSIONS

Potential for odour emissions related to Odour Control Facility.


The proposed OCF will mitigate odours to non-detectable levels through a high level of treatment. In addition, the OCF will be designed such that the system will incorporate redundancy features and will run continuously through the use of an emergency generator and external connection for a portable generator. Therefore, in the event of a power failure, the OCF will continue to treat air from the sewer.

All materials and equipment will have guarantees from the manufacturer/contractor. In addition, a performance commitment will be provided through full parts back up, standby back up power supply, continuous monitoring, a one to three-hour maintenance crew response time and a response protocol including a toll-free number for odour related issues, complaints and resolution.

The OCF will be constructed to the highest standards which include state-of-the-art technology. The facility will utilize biofilters, carbon filters, standby power and will control the release of treated air to allow for monitoring. This is the most advanced treatment system available and we will be applying lessons learned from other facilities.


The new SEC trunk sewer pipe itself will be a source of odour (not just the OCF).


As with any large gravity sewer pipe, odour will be generated inside the pipe from the sewer gases. This is partly due to the pipe following the topography of the land – moving from a higher elevation in York Region down to Lake Ontario in Durham Region. As a result of the changes in topography, ‘drop structures’ appear at different points along the way where odours may generate.

An odour mitigation strategy was developed to address potential effects related to odour and is documented in the EA Report (Section 6.1.5). The odour mitigation strategy has been implemented for the entire proposed SEC trunk sewer, not just at the OCF. As a result, potential odours from the trunk sewer will not be released, but will be controlled, collected and treated through the following measures:

• Minimizing the number of sharp bends, replacing these with large radius sewer sections such as west of Shaft 12, south of Shaft 8 and at the intersection of the Hydro corridor and Liverpool Road;

• Minimizing the number of drop structures to two locations: one at Shaft 6/7 and one at the Interconnection Chamber at Shaft 4 at Fairport Road;

• Adding chemicals to the sewage at the upper limit of the new SEC trunk sewer at 9th Line in the community of Box Grove. (Corrosion Control Facility at the Diversion Chamber – Construction Shaft 13);

• Maintaining the new SEC trunk sewer under negative air pressure (so that air is drawn into the sewer rather than being released to the atmosphere) through the use of air fans; and,


3



• Operating the OCF.

How do prevailing winds factor into how potential odour emissions are determined?


Theoretical prediction of odour effects at the sensitive receptors is determined using a computer application (dispersion model) as approved and required by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Input to the computer application includes five years of hourly local weather data including wind, as specified by the MOE. Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, rain, weather stability, mixing height, cloud coverage, etc. are required input for the dispersion model to calculate the worst 10 minute odour for all receptors of concerns over the full 5 years of hourly meteorological data. Prevailing wind direction does not influence the predicted odour effects at sensitive receptors as these are calculated as the worst 10 minute odour for all receptors of concerns over the full 5 years of hourly meteorological data.


Concern raised in relation to potential impact(s) of Hydrogen Sulphide and/or other toxins being emitted from proposed Odour Control Facility.


Operating the proposed OCF is not considered to pose a health risk to the community. The planning and approval of an OCF is subject to a strict Provincial regulatory process requiring a Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment covering the design, construction and operation of such a facility. The design of the OCF will bring levels of hydrogen sulphide, as well as other contaminants, including mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide and volatile organic compounds, to well below Ministry of the Environment standards.

To achieve a high standard of health and safety performance for the new Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Project, quality control systems will be included in the project design to provide real-time information to operating staff and thus ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of the facility. York Region will monitor and report to the public on the facility’s performance to fulfill the certificate of approval operating requirements.


ODOUR CONTROL FACILITY – DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

How reliable is the proposed OCF technology? If the OCF fails, what is the contingency plan and how can residents submit complaints to the Region?


The proposed OCF will treat odours using biofiltration followed by carbon filtration. Biofiltration is a proven technology with over 10 years experience and over 400 installations, including over 50 installations on trunk sewers. Activated carbon has been used in over 1,000 installations for over 25 years. The OCF will be designed with redundant equipment to ensure it is always in operation even during maintenance or electrical power failure.

There will be ongoing monitoring of the OCF and the air fan facilities and an operational response plan which will be ISO compliant. Residents will be able to use the daytime and after-hours emergency toll free phone number to contact York and Durham Regions as required. Calls will be documented along with the response and actions undertaken to address the complaint.


Why does the proposed OCF stack need to be 40 feet high?

The proposed stack provides a controlled release point for treated air. In addition the stack allows for sampling and monitoring of the treated air. The stack height was not revised during the OCF site relocation efforts, from Shaft 6/7 to Shaft 9 to York Durham Line Opposite Shaft 9. During the future detailed design of the OCF, system components will be refined and verified. For the proposed treated air release stack, the final stack diameter and height is dependent on a number of other parameters and process equipment, such as


4



(Approximately 5 times.) ductwork, fan speeds and air flow velocity. As requested in comments received from stakeholders, efforts will be made during detailed design to reduce the stack height, if possible. The final stack height will be determined as described above and will not exceed 12 m above ground level.

Request for the Proponent to provide an example of a similar Odour Control Facility, which works well and arrange a site tour to such a facility.


The Regions of York and Durham held a field trip in the spring of 2009 to an existing OCF site to demonstrate the effectiveness of this type of technology and interested persons were invited to attend.

It is also noted that there are numerous Odour Control Facilities throughout Canada and the United States that use biofilters and/or carbon filters, as proposed for the SEC. However, we are not aware of an OCF with the identical design and configuration as what is proposed for the SEC, as each sewer and associated facilities are designed to fit the unique conditions of the local environment.


ODOUR CONTROL FACILITY – CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

Adequacy of consultation activities related to the proposed Odour Control Facility (i.e., timing/form of notification to residents, public information forums held, etc).


Public consultation and communication related to the proposed odour management strategy and recommended location for the OCF has been ongoing since 2007, as documented below.

2007

• In June 2007, Public Information Forums (PIFs) presented the need for ancillary facilities (including the OCF) along the recommended new SEC trunk sewer route. The project team discussed the potential for a centralized OCF or smaller odour control facilities with the study area and answered questions from attendees regarding the OCF and proposed odour control methods.

• In late November and early December 2007, a series of four Neighbourhood Information Sessions (NIS) were held to show the emerging plans for the new trunk sewer and related facilities (including the proposed OCF) and obtain comments, concerns and feedback

• Following the NISs, newsletters were delivered to approximately 100,000 homes in the SEC study area to provide an update on recent project activities and to notify the public of the upcoming April 2008 PIFs. This newsletter included a study area map that showed the preferred sewer route for the new SEC trunk sewer and associated facilities (including the OCF) along the preferred route.

2008

• In April 2008, the project team hosted PIFs to present the five alternative locations that were considered for siting the proposed OCF and the recommended OCF location.

• In response to comments raised during the pre-submission review period related to the proposed


5



OCF, York and Durham Regions decided to hold a special Neighbourhood Information Session on November 5, 2008 for the residents of Cherrywood and the surrounding area.

2009

• Information was issued by mail to residents to provide details regarding a new location for the proposed OCF. Project team members also went door-to-door in the vicinity of Shaft 4, Shaft 6/7, and Shaft 9 to discuss the new location with residents.

One PIF was held in May 2009 in the City of Pickering to present a revised odour management strategy, including relocation of the proposed OCF to Shaft 9. A PIC was held in July 2009 in the Town of Markham to present another revised location for the proposed OCF on the west side of the York Durham Line across from Shaft 9 in York Region in response to residents’ concerns.

Questioned why did the Regions distributed newsletters to study area residents in unmarked envelopes?


Throughout the EA, the Regions have used a number of means of notifying the public of project activities, meetings, and events such as Public Information Forums (PIFs), including newspaper advertisements in local newspapers, direct letter mailings, web-site announcements, newsletters, door-hangers, etc.

For each round of consultation, approximately 100,000 newsletters were sent out through Canada Post to study area residents. It is noted that newsletters were distributed in envelopes during the Summer 2007 distribution. However, the project team followed up with Canada Post to ensure that envelopes were not used for any subsequent project newsletter mailings.


CONSTRUCTION NUISANCE EFFECTS

Concerned about the construction noise impacts related to construction of the new trunk sewer and Odour Control Facility.


The construction of the SEC trunk sewer will require construction compounds at specific locations along the sewer route. These construction compounds are generally located at construction shaft sites, maintenance shaft sites, permanent access chamber and OCF site locations.

The potential effect of construction noise has been identified and mitigation measures have been proposed. Mitigation measures include:

• Installation of standard solid wood hoarding around the perimeter of construction sites;

• Distance to sensitive receptors (residences) have been considered and are located at distances which will not result in construction noise or vibration issues;

• Where required impose restrictions on equipment noise levels;

• Where required impose duty cycle restrictions on equipment operations;


6



• During construction, ongoing monitoring of noise levels will be undertaken;

• Any complaints received during construction will be documented by the Contract Administrator along with the response and actions undertaken to address the complaint. The Regions are also proposing a Community Liaison Officer be assigned to identify complaints and work with the residents and the Contract Administrator/Contractor to address these complaints.

Further details are contained in Chapter 6 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.

Concerned about the construction traffic impacts related to construction of the new trunk sewer and Odour Control Facility.


The major element of the construction for the new SEC trunk sewer is underground tunnelling. Tunnel construction by its nature has minimal impacts on the surrounding area. Traffic to and from the tunnel construction compounds will be focused at specific construction shafts which have been located, where possible, in areas where there will be less impact on general traffic patterns. Construction access and construction traffic will be limited to the proposed haul roads shown on Figure 6.26 (see Chapter 6) of the Final (Amended) EA Report.

Detailed traffic control plans will be provided to the Town of Markham and the City of Pickering in advance of construction as part of detailed design following EA approval. Specifically, the co-proponents have committed to provide temporary traffic lanes on Liverpool Road north at Finch Avenue during the construction and use of Shaft 2, in the City of Pickering. This includes provision of the 3 lanes during shaft construction and 4 lanes after shaft construction. Property required to construct the temporary traffic lanes has been obtained and design drawings prepared for this construction work.


EFFECTS ON WELLS

Concerned about the potential effects on domestic wells and adequacy of well mitigation/monitoring strategy.


York and Durham Regions have adopted a well mitigation and monitoring program for the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer IEA. The well mitigation program will ensure that any wells determined to be affected by the construction activities will be mitigated, either through proactive well mitigation prior to construction or reactive mitigation during construction (24-hour call service). The York-Durham well mitigation strategy is presented in the Hydrogeological/Geotechnical Impact Assessment Report, Appendix P, and on the Regions Project Websitehttp://www.sectrunksewer.ca/.

The only active groundwater taking is anticipated to be at Shaft 13, near the community of Box Grove. Groundwater takings are needed in this area to temporarily depressurize the aquifer for a short duration (4 months), to facilitate the connection of the sewer to the existing SEC. The temporary water takings are not anticipated to affect private water wells. The water takings are in the vicinity of the community of Box Grove, which has municipal water supply service. Some residents in this community have retained their wells, primarily for non-potable uses (e.g., gardening).


Concerned about the potential effects on wells

The sewer construction is not anticipated to have a negative effect on agricultural operations, ( e.g, Whittamore’s Berry Farm) or other specialized water uses such as green house operations or golf courses,

The MOE is satisfied with

7



serving agricultural operations (e.g., Whittamore’s Berry Farm) and how they will be mitigated.


because the majority of the sewer will be constructed in a low permeable aquitard, and construction mitigation methods (e.g., sealed shaft technology, and EPBM) will be employed, where required, to minimize or eliminate groundwater takings.

York and Durham Regions have also implemented a well monitoring and mitigation program to ensure that there is no loss of water or interruption to businesses. The well mitigation strategy includes specialized water users and is presented in the Hydrogeological/Geotechnical Impact Assessment Report, Appendix P. The monitoring programming will also be on-going before, during and after the undertaking has been completed. In the event of any unforeseen ‘emergency’ or contingency situation, the monitoring and mitigation plan provides further assurance that any potential negative effect will be determined in advance, and that a water supply will be provided to the farm quickly, as may be needed.

Please also see Section 6.3 of the EA Report for discussion of the mitigation measures related to wells.

the proponents’ response.

TERRESTRIAL FEATURES, SURFACE WATER, GROUNDWATER

Concerned about the potential effects on trees on Finch Avenue.


The proposed sewer is located below the rooting zones of all trees along Finch Avenue and no net effects on groundwater and/or surface water are anticipated as a result of the construction of the proposed sewer at this location. All impacts to trees along Finch Avenue are restricted to construction compounds, i.e., Shaft 2 (located immediately east of Liverpool Road) and Shaft 1/Connection Chamber (immediately west of Valley Farm Road). No impacts to trees are anticipated between Liverpool Road and Valley Farm Road. All trees within proposed construction compounds will be protected with hoarding fencing where possible. Where avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation/compensation/enhancement measures will be considered and applied to minimize potential effects. These measures include post construction compensation plantings incorporated at an appropriate caliper-replacement ratio for all trees lost as a result of construction activities. Please also see Chapter 6 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.


The Region Southeast Collector EA predicts impacts on the Rouge River flows due to dewatering at Box Grove shaft. This conclusion is in contradiction to the Region’s repeated denial of stream impacts from dewatering at the same Box Grove shaft during the Lower 9th Line/16th Ave construction.

The Southeast Collector EA evaluation indicates that the temporary water taking at Shaft 13 would have an effect on the baseflow of the Rouge River without the implementation of additional mitigation measures (e.g., baseflow supplementation) (Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Environmental Assessment Report, Section 6.3.2.2). Monitoring will be undertaken as needed to inform mitigation intended to minimize impacts to the natural environment. Monitoring and mitigation of the loss of baseflow (quantity and quality) is presented in the Natural Environment Impact Assessment Report (Section 7.1.1.3).and the Final (Amended) EA Report (Chapter 7).


8




The Region does not recognize residual interference impacts from the 9th Line and the 16th Ave YDSS projects inherent in the stream and groundwater monitoring for SE Collector.


Groundwater levels have been monitored along 9th Line and 16th Avenue on a monthly basis (or more frequently) in over 100 wells from the beginning of the projects to the completion and end of the water takings on 16th Avenue over two years ago. Monitoring has continued during the aquifer recovery period. The aquifer recovery assessment has been based on pre-construction groundwater levels, and indicates that groundwater levels have recovered over the majority of the effected area. The Region recognizes that there are a few small areas near the 9th Line and 16th Avenue intersection that are recovering more slowly, which are continuing to be monitored. These effects are outside the Southeast Collectors study area.

The Region’s consultant predicted aquifer recovery within three to four years of the cessation of water takings for the 16th Avenue Project. Recent monitoring (December 2008) indicates that the aquifer has recovered over the majority of the affected area, and it is anticipated that recovery will continue throughout the ‘spring thaw’ in 2009. Given the complexity of the project water takings, the predicted aquifer recovery is fairly accurate.


Request for a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act evaluation of the SE Collector to assess the potential cumulative effects to Rouge, Petticoat and Duffins River aquifers and fish habitat and Lake Ontario water quality.


During the SEC EA, the Regions prepared a Project Description that was circulated to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) as well as other potential Federal Authorities including Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Based on their review of the Project Description, no Federal EA triggers were identified. Please refer to the Government Review Team Comments and Responses Table,


The Regional Groundwater Modelling is improperly calibrated and requires revised assumptions to reflect hydraulic continuity of the Oak Ridges Aquifer Complex (incorrectly termed Interstadial in the EA Report) and recognize the high probability of

The SEC Trunk Sewer EA and groundwater model recognizes the hydraulic properties of the Oak Ridges Aquifer complex and potential connection of aquifer units within the study area. These aquifers have higher hydraulic conductivity and ‘continuity’, where they are situated close to and bordering the Oak Ridges Moraine. In the study area these aquifers are typically thin and discontinuous, and are an approximate time equivalent of the ORM deposits, but are not moraine features.

The SEC Trunk Sewer EA project incorporated information from over 75 geological/hydrogeological studies as part of assessing the geology/hydrogeology within the SEC Trunk Sewer EA Study Area, including borehole data and hydrogeological information. In addition over 130 boreholes were advanced in the study area, and 56 monitoring wells and 17 test wells were installed specifically targeting aquifers including potential channel aquifers. These aquifers were identified during the route selection process and the


9



extended delay due to tunnelling incidents despite the Region’s best efforts.


preferred route was selected based on avoidance of these aquifers.

The model was calibrated to observed groundwater levels and estimated baseflow. The primary target for water level calibration was the observed static water levels in the Southeast Collector monitoring well network and data from the MOE Water Well Information System (WWIS) database. The other target for model calibration was to match the simulated baseflow to Environment Canada HYDAT stream flow gauges, with long-term record in the model area. The groundwater model and calibration has been peer reviewed by Dr. Ken Howard of the University of Toronto, and provides a satisfactory analysis of the potential effects.

The 19th Avenue construction was completed on schedule, and the construction methods employed for this project will also be implemented on the Southeast Collectors Project. In addition, contingency monitoring and mitigation plans will be employed in the event of any unforeseen water takings during construction of the sewer. Contingency water taking situations are addressed in the Hydrogeological/ Geotechnical Impact Assessment Report (Section 7.2), and are based on conservative estimates of the potential water takings and area of influence.

The Region does not recognize residual interference impacts from the 9th Line and the 16th Ave YDSS projects inherent in the stream and groundwater monitoring for Southeast Collector.


Long term monitoring of the Rouge River has been on-going since the 1960s at 14th Ave. This data indicates that current stream baseflows are similar to the historical record. There is no evidence of these low flows, and baseflows in recent years are consistent with the historic record.

The 9th Line Phase 1 sewer construction commenced near the community of Box Grove at the former YDSS and C3 shaft compounds. Water takings from the Thorncliffe Aquifer at these locations began in August 2000, and continued for almost two years, and were completed in March 2002. Recovery of the Thorncliffe Aquifer has been monitored at MW9, since water takings ceased in 2002. Review of the groundwater level recovery indicates that levels have recovered to 80%, and based on the rate of recovery, the water levels are anticipated to completely recover to 100% before construction on the Southeast Collector Project begins in 2010, and before any water taking is anticipated to commence at Shaft 13 in 2012.


The EA report places ‘blind faith’ on the modelling based predictions which underpin the predicted impacts to surficial wetlands and streams.


The EA report did not rely solely on the YPDT numerical groundwater model or place ‘blind faith’ in the model predictions. Assessment was largely based on the results of the field activities undertaken, the project team’s expertise and experience in conjunction with the mathematical modeling (both analytical and numerical). The assessment of potential future effects of the preferred route was largely undertaken using field data and analytical modeling methods. The results from the YDPT model were used primarily for comparison with the analytical model results.


AIR AND WATER QUALITY

10



Concerned that sewage sludge incineration will pollute the air (i.e. Mercury, dioxin and furan toxins).


The SEC project is not related to the use of incineration of sewage bio-solids at the Duffin Creek WPCP. This issue is directly related to operations at the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant and is outside of the scope of the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer EA.


Concerned that Lake Ontario (source of drinking water) will be polluted with biologically active chemicals as a result of the new SEC trunk sewer.


This issue is directly related to operations at the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) and is outside of the scope of the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer EA.

We do however, note that more chemicals of concern are being detected in the environment because of advances in the ability of laboratory equipment to measure minute/trace amounts and that such chemicals remain present at extremely low levels. For example, pharmaceuticals have been detected in some drinking water supplies; however compared to prescribed therapeutic doses, a person would have to drink thousands or even millions of litres of water to ingest an amount comparable to that of one pill (Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy 2006). In addition to pharmaceuticals, emerging chemicals of concern are endocrine disrupting compounds and personal care products. WPCPs remove or degrade many of these chemicals (Canadian Institute for Environmental law and Policy, 2006), and no studies have linked changes in fish populations to pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting compounds or personal care products to WPCP discharges. Environment Canada is currently undertaking many initiatives to examine these chemicals of concern in order to make informed decisions and if necessary develop requirements to manage these chemicals. As with some other contaminants such as DDT and PCBs, the focus may be on proactively eliminating the source of contamination rather than a treatment based reactive approach.


To respect the environmental carrying capacity of Lake Ontario, Lake Simcoe and GTA, York Region, Provincial and Federal officials should take steps to reduce the Region’s growth rate to an average of less than 1% per year.


The SEC IEA has been carried out on the basis that the growth levels projected in accordance with federal, provincial and regional policy will need to be accommodated with sufficient sewage treatment capacity to fulfill population and employment demands on a sustainable basis. The Province and the Regions have done a great deal of work through the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan and the two Regional Official Plans to define a growth scenario that will maximize social, economic and environmental benefits in this area.

These plans will no doubt evolve and change over time to adjust to society’s changing needs, but it is not the role of the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer IEA to anticipate, predict or change growth objectives.


11



MITIGATION MEASURES AND ENHANCEMENTS

What types of enhancements are being proposed as part of the SEC EA?


Although the list of final recommended enhancements has been established in concert with interested stakeholders (i.e., TRCA, Rouge Park Alliance, City of Pickering, Town of Markham, School Boards, etc.), the recommended enhancements will continue to be refined in consultation with interested stakeholders working towards a list of York Region/Durham Region approved enhancements for implementation following EA approval of the Preferred Undertaking. There were a total of 42 recommended enhancements identified in the Final (Amended) EA Report (see Chapter 6, Section 6.5.5) (available on the project web site http://www.sectrunksewer.ca/Some specific examples are as follows:

Recommended Ecological Enhancements

• Upland and Wetland Disturbance Management

• Natural Area Connectivity and Habitat Restoration

• Amphibian Habitat Enhancement

• Recommended Recreational/Trails Enhancements

• Improvements to the Box Grove Community Centre

• Pedestrian recreational trails, biking trails

• gardens with the Hydro Corridor and extension of the Seaton Trail,

on ORC lands

Pedestrian trails and community south of the Third Concession Road

• Soccer fields at Valley Farm Road at Third Concession

• Recommended Infrastructure Enhancements

• from Finch Avenue to IAR-I002/I18/H2: Construct traffic flow based improvements on Liverpool Road North Terminus

• Construct Public Transit upgrades – bus pull over lanes, bus shelters and signage


12



For additional information on enhancements, please refer to Chapter 6 of the Final (Amended) EA Report.

Requested information on the proposed

d improvements.


ncluded in Table 6-5: Summary of Mitigation/Compensation Measures Associated with the Preferred Undertaking of the Final (Amended) EA Report which is available on the project web site (http://www.sectrunksewer.ca/). Regarding enhancements (i.e., improvements), please see the response above to comment #31.


mitigation measures an

The summary of mitigation measures that are to be implemented as part of the SEC EA project are i

RELIABILITY OF NEW SEC TRUNK SEWER & ANCILLARY FACILITIES

What are the potential

down?


sion to initially divert all flow (partial flow in the future) from the proposed SEC trunk sewer to the existing SEC trunk sewer section should maintensingle S

• the existing SEC trunk sewer remaining in the

proposed SEC trunk sewer. Capacity restriction in the proposed SEC trunk sewer would be

• r will be constructed using sealed segmental concrete liner, through an impermeable soil layer (Newmarket till) which ensures that there is limited potential for leakage from the sewer into

to

The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’ response. health risks if the new

trunk sewer breaks

The design of the proposed SEC trunk sewer is a gravity system with no moving parts required for conveyance of sewage flows. As a result there are no mechanical systems that could “break down”. The structural elements have a design life approaching 100 years. The proposed SEC trunk sewer is also redundant to the existing SEC trunk sewer section. This allows for the provi

ance be required on the proposed SEC trunk sewer. This will be an improvement from the current EC trunk sewer arrangement. Furthermore, we note the following:

With respect to restricted sewer capacity, flows would be diverted to the existing SEC trunk sewer section with flows in excess of the capacity of

investigated and corrected. It is noted that based on the operating history of the SEC trunk sewer, the possibility of “break down” is extremely low.

The sewe

the soil. Further, the depth of sewer is well below any water sources that may be considered risks health.

What is the risk of basements flooding

sewer?


There will be no risk of basements flooding in relation to the new SEC trunk sewer. Provisions for capacity

It is noted that, as the existing SEC trunk sewer is currently reaching capacity, there is increased potential for

uired now and for projected future growth.

le


related to the SEC trunk improvements at the Duffin wastewater pollution control plant will ensure no upstream basement flooding within SEC trunk sewer.

pipe surcharging and potential overflows. The new trunk sewer will eliminate this risk by providing the additional capacity req

Please also refer to Section 3.4 in the EA Report as well as Supporting Document #2 – Purpose of/Rationafor the Undertaking.

13



Concerned about gasebeing discharge

s d from

the Corrosion Control

human health.

Alternative chemicals are possible and include hydrogen peroxide, chlorine solution or potentially iron salts. None of these chemicals pose a potential health risk. Further, the CCF building contains the chemical in closed storage tanks and there will not be any release of gasses or “gaseous emission” from


Facility and effects on


The purpose of the Corrosion Control Facility (CCF) is to control corrosion of the trunk sewer as well as to control the generation of odour by direct chemical injection to neutralize and precipitate sulphur compounds.

this facility.

Large deep sewer pipare very difficult to monitor, maintain and repair. If the Big Pipe leaks or fails, as all pipes

es

do over time, sewage and

drinking water aquifers.


t .

mined to be very dense which restricts groundwater movement. The proposed SEC trunk sewer will be constructed using a concrete segmental liner, which is designed to

rnal pressure load on the structure, groundwater wants to come into the tunnel as opposed to letting wastewater out. In both the impermeable soil areas as

o

n of the proposed SEC trunk sewer may operate in surcharged conditions similar to the existing SEC trunk sewer. For this section from Valley Farm Road to west of Liverpool Road, the

e

der dry conditions. Further, having both the existing and proposed SEC trunk sewers operational, also allows diversion of partial sewage flow from the proposed SEC trunk sewer to the xisting SEC trunk sewer, resulting in improved conditions for operations, monitoring and maintenance of the

proposed SEC trunk sewer.


E. coli will escape into

With regard to the risk to ground water resources and leakage into aquifers, the tunnel will be constructed adepth and over 90% of the preferred alignment would be constructed in the Halton/Newmarket Till aquitardThis material has been sampled and deter

resist the external soil pressure on the tunnel structure. This external pressure compresses the concrete liner and ensures a tight sealed structure.

Where the tunnel passes through the sand and groundwater areas, the artesian or groundwater pressure external to the sewer are also very high. Aside from the exte

well as in the areas where there is high groundwater present there is no potential for the tunnel to leak and tcreate heath issues in terms of the drinking water supplies.

The downstream sectio

proposed SEC trunk sewer will include a separate pressure pipe installed inside of the proposed SEC trunk sewer segmental liner.

Locating the proposed sewer in the Newmarket Till, combined with sewer construction using tunnel methods,results in a low potential for impacts on the groundwater system.

The operation and maintenance of the SEC trunk sewer section of the YDSS will actually be improved oncethe proposed SEC trunk sewer is constructed. Following construction of the proposed SEC trunk sewer, thsewage flow from the existing SEC trunk sewer can be diverted to the proposed SEC trunk sewer. This diversion will allow for improved opportunities for operations, including monitoring and maintenance of the existing SEC trunk sewer un

e

14



CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

In the longer term, advanced sewage treatment and water recycling at local and regional levels will be less environmentally destructive and less costly than long distance exporting of sewage and water in big pipes to Lake


e populations are located in deserts or in areas where groundwater

y, ect timelines that are required to

ogy cannot be used at this time, as an alternative to the construction of the proposed


Ontario.

We are aware of the projects in California, Arizona, Hawaii and elsewhere where water re-use has been investigated and implemented in various ways. The comment received from stakeholders suggests that direct re-use of water is possible as a solution to the construction of the proposed SEC trunk sewer, however, this is not entirely accurate. Effluent water that is being re-used is being applied as a means to divert morepotable water to such things as crop irrigation. In California and Arizona, effluent water is being used in some cases for groundwater recharge which is not the same as potable water supply. Kranji Singapore is one example where direct water re-use is being used but the effluent water is not being used directly but is being used as raw water for a water treatment process. In each of these areas there is limited or no other supply of drinking water available, as thessupplies are impacted by seawater.

Many states in the U.S. as well as the Province of Ontario prohibit the use of effluent for drinking water supply, ground water recharge or direct application for crop irrigation that will be in contact with the human food supply regardless of the effluent quality provided. It is possible that in the future some element of water re-use could be considered, however, it is not permitted in Ontario from a regulatory perspective. Secondlthe implementation of water re-use cannot be completed within the projaddress the near term capacity issues of the existing SEC trunk sewer.

As a result, this technolSEC trunk sewer.


Oppose route 13 througBob Hunter Memorial Park and prefer route 8 along the 9th Line

h

and


primary disadvantages associated with relative to Route #13 a

aft

ter systems, will be required for the Steeles Ave

• d potential to affect aquatic habitat and species compared to the route along 14th

d) es Avenue has been identified with a lack of

structural capacity to carry construction traffic loads.


Steeles Avenue.

Alternative Sewer Route #8 has the followingnd the other three short-listed sewer routes:

The route along 14th Avenue from 9th Line to Townline Road will likely only require water-taking for shconstruction. In contrast, the route along Steeles Avenue will likely require water-taking for both shaftand tunnel construction. Consequently, additional mitigation and monitoring of water-taking and discharge of groundwater, especially if discharged to surface wa

nue route compared to the route along 14th Avenue.

IncreaseAvenue.

Since Route #8 utilizes 9th Line and Steeles Avenue, shaft construction will have a greater impact on utilities and traffic in comparison to the other routes since the 9th Line ROW is smaller and more congested (as a result of servicing development along 9th Line). Also, lane diversions around shafts will be more difficult on 9th Line and the western portion of Steeles Avenue (the two lane potion of the roathan on 14th Avenue/Townline Road. In addition, Steel


15



ential social effects anticipated including

gnated built heritage features, municipally designated built heritage features, and cultural landscape

porting Document #15 – Evaluation of the Short-listed Alternative

Highest number of adjacent residences with greatest potnoise/dust/vibrations and construction traffic disruption.

Highest concentration of heritage resources potentially affected including those associated with the Cherrywood historic settlement compared to the other four short-listed routes that have less provincially desiunits.

Section 5.4 of the EA Report as well as SupSewer Routes provides further information.

York Region should tretheir own wastewwithin their ow

at ater

n


e

o. Therefore a new

wer. the area of Valley Farm Road, downstream to Lake

Ont

1. hus,

the volume of clean water entering treatment

2.


jurisdiction.

The majority of the raw sewage discharged to the SEC is generated in York Region. The alternative of York Region constructing a sewage treatment plant within their borders was considered in the Alternatives to theUndertaking as presented in Section 4.1.7 of the EA Report. A sewage treatment plant within York Region would need to discharge treated effluent to a watercourse, such as the Rouge River or Duffins Creek that flow through Durham Region to Lake Ontario. There are no watercourses with sufficient capacity to receivthe discharges from a Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in York Region without impact on the natural environment of the watercourse(s) from the discharge point all the way to Lake OntariWPCP in York Region to treat York Region sewage flows is not considered feasible.

One other comment from stakeholders was to treat York Region sewage in York and then pipe the treated sewage to Lake Ontario. The construction of a York WPCP is considered a new/additional construction site and would result in additional potential effects. Construction of a pipe to convey treated discharge from a new York WPCP would likely follow the proposed SEC trunk sewer alignment at least to the reconnection point at Valley Farm Road. The potential effects are known for the construction of the the proposed SEC trunk seFrom the re-connection point at the existing YDSS in

ario, there are generally two options as follows:

Reconnect the treated discharge pipe to the existing YDSS for conveyance to the Duffin Creek WPCP. This would combine the treated discharge with the raw sewage from Durham Region. Tthe flows treated in York Region would be treated again at the Duffin Creek WPCP, and such “double treatment” would not be cost effective. It is not likely that the MOE would approve this approach because MOE policy calls for minimizing facilities in order maximize treatment efficiencies.

Construct a new pipe to convey treated flow separately through Durham Region to a new outlet into Lake Ontario. This would require an EA Schedule C to be completed at a minimum for the new pipe, as well as a similar process for the new outfall into Lake Ontario. The implementation of constructinga new pipe to convey treated flow separately through Durham Region to a new outlet into Lake


16



Ontario cannot be completed within the project timelines that are required to address the near term

The options 1 and 2 are not considered feasible, for the reasons described above, and are not

capacity issues of the existing SEC trunk sewer.

recommended.

York Region should be improving Water Use


“Construct a new trunk sewer in combination with the implementation of other water efficiency and

EA Report, York Region examined their current “Water for Tomorrow” and I/I initiatives and have committed to the following two programs in

ciency and I/I reduction measures:

, 2007 meeting and approved the Water Efficiency Master Plan Update on June 21, 2007. The enhanced ten-year water eff nc it with the following major components:

grams;

ms;

;

, it is estimated that a reduction of 23.8 ML/d will be achieved.

tems within its jurisdiction. With this in mind, York Region approved the I/I program at its April 4, 2007 meeting with an allocatio $2 The program is based on the following four stages:


Efficiency.

As stated in Section 4.5 of the EA Report, the Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking was identified as

inflow/infiltration (I/I) reduction measures” was confirmed as the Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking.

As a result, the alternative methods of carrying out water efficiency and I/I reduction measures will involve York Region and its local area municipalities working together to review their existing programs in order to enhance their effectiveness and generate new measures that will assist York Region in further minimizing sanitary sewer flows. As described in greater detail in Section 4.1.3 of the

terms of implementing other water effi

Phase 2 Water Efficiency Program

York Regional Council considered an enhanced ten-year water efficiency program at its June 13

icie y program has $41.7 million allocated to

a) Residential incentive based pro

b) ICI incentive based progra

c) Leak detection programs

d) Education Program.

Over the life of the program

I/I Reduction Program

In co-operation with local municipalities, York Region is also committed to implementing I/I reduction measures targeted at reducing the wet weather flows entering the collection and treatment sys

n of 4 million in capital funding.

17



a)

tion pilot projects (development of I/I standards and I/I pilot projects of new technologies);

c) Cost/benefit analysis; and

Flow Monitoring Program;

b) Implementation of I/I reduc

d) Project recommendations and cost sharing for full scale rollout.

A YDSS Interceptor ssystem located in the underlying shale bedrocwould provide much greater security and reduced environmimpact. Th

ewer

k

ental is alternative

was not included in the

analysis.


p shale bedrock would eventually intersect the Scarborough and Thorncliffe aquifers due to the changes in the elevations of these layers across the study area. As a result, a bedrock alignment does not avoid or minimize construction through the existing aquifer formations or the associated potential for water taking.


comparative route

In order to construct a sewer in the shale bedrock deep shafts (approximately 60 metres deep) would be required, which are very expensive and beyond the capability of tunnel contractors. Further, a tunnel alignment which begins within the dee

GROUNDWATER DATA

The SE Collector EA failto provide adequate and up-to-date information onthe actual volumes of groundwater infiltration and surface water inflow(“I and I”) per month and per year. The data in thecurrent EA appears outdated (1998 to 2002),

s

incomplete and e

for future reference.

s

l nd operated by the local municipalities whereas the trunk systems are owned and

operated by York Region. The Region is committed to work in partnership with the local municipalities on an I&I reduction and will provide financial support to those municipalities that have and will implement an I&I reduction strategy.


unsuitable as a baselin


I/I from local sewage systems is recognized as a large contributor to peak flows. I/I and water conservation ipart of the chosen alternative for this IEA, but can only achieve a total flow reduction of up to approximately 10%. Our investigations have shown that a reduction in up to 10% of I/I flows is achievable when applying Best Practices such as pipe relining and leak detection programs. York Region and area municipalities are jointly working to assess the condition of the existing pipe system using camera technology and measure the I/I flow in the local pipe systems. The Region in partnership with the local municipalities have installed 122 flow monitoring locations to supplement the flow monitoring information collected from 1998 to 2002. The data from past flow records combined with the current flow monitoring data will for analyzing and planning the I&I reduction programs on the local sewage collection systems. It should be noted that the locapipe systems are owned a

Request for the Regions The Region of York will provide a bi-annual update report on the Region's web site on the progress of the I&I The MOE is satisfied with

18



to provide a websitemonthly updates anaccurate and independent monitoring of the monthly and annual volumes of groundwater and surface water leakage (I and I) into the YDSS for each waters

with d

hed and lower tier

YDSS.

n of ion

catchments. Other information such as the I&I reduction efforts from the local municipalities will also be included on the website. It is important to note that the Region's partnership with the local municipalities on I&I reduction will include financial support to those municipalities that have and will implement an I&I reduction strategy


municipality in York Region and the overall


Reduction Program funded by the Region and in partnership with the local municipalities. The RegioYork will post all reports that are produced out of the current Phase 1 Monitoring and Assessment portof the I&I Reduction Program. The main report will provide flow monitoring data and I&I analysis results from Phase 1 and one year of flow monitoring (March 08 – March 09) for the 122 flow monitoring points throughout the Region. The bi-annual update will continue year over year and will include information on the I&I remediation pilot projects and post construction flow monitoring to identify the changes in response to wet weather events for the selected

Data being put forward as“baseline” for the SEC Trunk Sewer EA actually reflects water levels and flows reduced by th

e 9th

d aquifer dewatering.


horncliffe Aquifer has been monitored at MW9, since water takings ceased near Shaft 13 in 2002. Review of the groundwater level recovery indicates that levels have recovered to 80%, and based on the rate of recovery, the levels are anticipated to completely recover before any active water taking is anticipated to commence.


Line and 16th Avenue YDSS sewer projects an

As previously mentioned, recovery of the T

OTHER ISSUES/CONCERNS

The SEC trunk sewer violates Intrabasin transfer laws.

No it does not. Since the water supply for the majority of York Region is Lake Ontario based, the return of wastewater via the YDSS (Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer) to the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant for treatment and release to Lake Ontario does reflect the spirit and intent of the Great Lakes Charter.



Issue of B.C. pipeline bombings was raised.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer EA. The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’ response.


The maps showing the The MOE is satisfied with The Lake Iroquois Shoreline feature is accurately depicted, based on 1:50,000 scale geological mapping of

19



Iroquois Shoreline are e

fragmented). areas the Lake Iroquois shoreline sands have

the proponents’ response. inaccurate (i.e., they ar


the Markham Area by the Geological Survey of Canada (Open File 3300, Sharpe et. al., 1997) and the Ontario Geological Survey (Barnett 1997, and Karrow 1967). The shoreline feature is typically marked by a steep decrease in topography (elevation) and by glaciolacustrine sand deposits. Later stages of Lake Iroquois also created lower ‘terraced’ features, and in some been eroded away or are overlain by glaciolacustrine silts and clays. Results from drilling completed for the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental Assessment have confirmed that portions of the Iroquois shoreline have been eroded away in the Study Area.

Cherrywood residencesshould be able to conne

ct

to the sewer system.

Under Section 4.2.2 (Para 5) of the Greenbelt Plan (2005), if a settlement area is currently un-serviced and located outside a defined servicing boundary as defined in the relevant municipal official plan then an extension of that service is not permitted except for human health or environmental reasons.



Request to refer the EA to

Tribunal.

(Approximately 5 times.) that the or

e

The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’ response. the Ontario

Environmental Review

Given the scope of work for this project stipulated by the approved terms of reference and other Ministerial conditions, the level of detail of the studies that have been finished, the degree of planning and design performed, the completion of a comprehensive peer review using acknowledged experts in their respective fields, the level of oversight provided by provincial regulators and the depth and broad range of consultation completed with regulatory agencies, the advisory committee, stakeholders, municipalities, political representatives, agencies, communities, affected parties and First Nations, it is the proponents viewreferral of all or a portion of the SEC Environmental Assessment to the Environmental Review Tribunal fdetermination is not required or necessary. The comprehensive information that has been compiled and ththoroughness of the review that has been required and completed for this project, including the opportunities for public involvement and review since the project was started in 2005 (including background information, working papers, studies and the draft and final Environmental Assessment), is considered to be sufficient to provide the Ministry of the Environment and the Minister of the Environment with suitable information to assess and determine whether to approve the project on the basis of the completed Environmental Assessment and in consideration of the comments that have been submitted.

The length of the SEC EReport review period is

A

inadequate.

w period to be 7 weeks from when the

8, 2008 to January 23, 2009.

stry review of the EA, triggered by a Notice of Completion.



The Ministry of the Environment (Ministry) requires the Phase 1 revie“Notice of Submission” was issued. Given that the Phase 1 review period for the SEC EA fell during the Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Years Day statutory holidays, the comment period was extended to 8 weeks, (instead of 7) from November 2

There will be an additional 5 week public review/comment period following the Mini

If York Region cannomanage the sewage from growth within York Region, then t

t

he proposed growth is

This issue is outside of the scope of the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer EA. The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’ response.

20



unsustainable and should not proceed.


We are opposed to tSewage Treatmento be located in the

he t plant

municipalities of


There is no sewage treatment plant proposed as part of the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer EA project. The MOE is satisfied with the proponents’ response.

Pickering and Ajax.

21