54
A Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Summary of Input and MNR Responses on the Draft Class EA (Phase II-b) October 12, 2001
0
A Class Environmental Assessment forProvincial Parks andConservation Reserves
Summary of Input and MNR Responses on the Draft Class EA (Phase II-b)
October 12, 2001
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1
INPUT AND RESPONSES..........................................................................................3
PREFACE................................................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 2: PROVINCIAL CONTEXT....................................................................................... 4
SECTION 3: PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THIS CLASS EA ........................................................ 6
SECTION 4: CLASS EA CATEGORIES AND THE SCREENING PROCESS ........................ 15
SECTION 5: PROJECT EVALUATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESSES FOR CATEGORY BAND C PROJECTS .................................................................................................................. 25
SECTION 6: CLASS EA ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES................... 29
APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS .................................................... 31
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PROJECTS......................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX 3: POLICIES, PROCEDURES, GUIDELINES, POLICIES, MANUALS ................ 39
APPENDIX 4: PROVINCIAL CONTEXT .................................................................................. 41
APPENDIX 5: ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................... 43
APPENDIX 6: GOVERNMENT AGENCIES............................................................................. 43
APPENDIX 7: OTHER RELEVANT FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION................ 44
APPENDIX 8: NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION........................................................... 45
APPENDIX 9: SAMPLE NOTICES AND FORMS .................................................................... 48
GENERAL COMMENTS........................................................................................................... 48
1
INTRODUCTION
This report provides a summary of comments received as a result of distributingthe Draft Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks andConservation Reserves. The Draft was posted for public review on theEnvironmental Registry on April 17, 2001 and was also mailed to approximately180 agencies, provincial Aboriginal organizations, groups, and individuals.
In total, 28 responses were received, and four meetings/discussions were heldwith an array of groups and agencies to discuss details (including presentationsto MNR’s Northeast Regional Advisory Committee comprising a variety ofstakeholder representatives, and the Parks Research Forum of Ontario).Responses were received from the following:
Interest Groups, Companies Agencies: Provincial GovernmentCELA
DOM
EAR
GWT
HO
SLDF
WL
WCA
Canadian Environmental LawAssociation
Domtar (telephone discussion)
Earthroots
Great West Timber Limited
Hike Ontario
Sierra Legal Defence Fund (2)
Wildlands League
Wilderness Canoe Association
IndividualsJL John Lavoie
Agencies: Federal GovernmentCEAA
EC
INAC
PC
Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Agency
Environment Canada
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
Parks Canada
AFA
MAFRA
ONAS
MEST
MOE:EAAB
CRER
MNDM
NEC
MMAH
MTO
MTCR:
RBTCHR
Algonquin Forestry Authority
Ministry of Agriculture, Food andRural Affairs
Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat
Ministry of Energy, Science andTechnology
Ministry of the Environment:- Environmental Assessment andApprovals Branch- Central Region- Eastern Region
Ministry of NorthernDevelopment and Mines
Niagara EscarpmentCommission
Ministry of Municipal Affairs andHousing
Ministry of Transportation
Ministry of Tourism, Culture &Recreation-Resource Based Tourism-Cultural Heritage Resources
Aboriginal GroupsNANWFN
Nishnawbe Aski NationWapekeka First Nation
2
The topics found in each submission are presented in sections that correspond tothe Draft Class EA. Many of the responses in this report refer to the “SubmittedClass EA” which is the final Class EA that MNR submitted to the Ministry of theEnvironment (MOE) for review (the Submitted Class EA corresponds with phaseIII of the planning process).
For more information about this report or the Class EA process, contact: BartonFeilders, Manager, Planning and Research Section, Ontario Parks, Telephone:(705) 755-1730, Email: [email protected] , or Dan Paleczny, ClassEA Project Manager, Ontario Parks, 300 Water Street, Peterborough, ON K9J8M5. Telephone: (705) 755-1745, FAX: (705) 755-1701, Email:[email protected] . Copies of planning documents are available fromus, or at: www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/parksea2000.
MNR thanks all who participated in the review.
3
INPUT AND RESPONSES
PREFACE
Comment:In the preface of the document make reference to pertinent parts of OLL to set abroader context to this exercise. (MTCR RBT)
Response:This comment is addressed in Section 2 (figure 2) and appendix 4.
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.2 Reasons for Using a Class EA (page 3, 4)
Comment:Some provisions relating the government’s commitments to the mineral sectorthrough the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) would be subjectto the requirements of the EA Act. These provisions include the commitments toallow access across protected areas, “controlled exploration” to be done inprotected areas, and protected areas to be deregulated where a mineraldiscovery worthy of development is made. All should be addressed in the ClassEA. (MNDM)
Response:The Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) states that mineralexploration may occur under controlled conditions in portions of new provincialparks or conservation reserves that are identified through further analysis andconsultation as having provincially-significant mineral potential. If part of a newpark is to be developed for a mine, it would be deregulated as part of the park,and appropriate replacement lands would be placed into regulation.
The Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) further states that prior topermitting exploration in portions of the new provincial parks or conservationreserves, procedures will be developed that will include:
• Criteria for designating areas of provincially significant mineral potential;• Claim staking regulations for use in new protected areas;• Guidelines for exploration activities which will consider the environmental
sensitivity of the sites;• Procedures for monitoring, inspecting and reporting;• Procedures to be followed in taking a find to the advanced exploration
stage;
4
• Procedures for replacing land that may be removed to permit developmentof a mine; and
• Conditions for restoring land to provincial park/conservation reserve statuswhen mining is finished.
At this time, this work has not yet been completed and the nature ofenvironmental assessment coverage that may be required for these proceduresis not known. Therefore, this Class EA does not provide environmentalassessment coverage for such projects. However, once these procedures havebeen addressed, MNR in cooperation with MNDM will prepare an amendment tothis Class EA in accordance with the provisions in Section 6.2. This point hasbeen added to Section 1.2 to acknowledge the concern.
Separate from the above discussion, the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land UseStrategy (1999) recognizes that the mining industry will be able to accessexisting mining tenure, with appropriate consideration for the protection of thevalues. Accordingly, allowing access existing tenure has been included in the listof projects in Appendix 2 and addressed in Section 3.5.3.
SECTION 2: PROVINCIAL CONTEXT
2.2 Management Direction and this Class EA (page 7)
Comment:We are interested in how protected area values are input into the harmonizedprocess mentioned with respect to providing management direction inconjunction with other MNR management planning processes (forest, fire,fisheries?) (PC)
Response:Protected area values are identified through recreation, life, earth and culturalresource assessments and inventories, and through public input duringmanagement planning processes. In addition, staff participate in managementplanning teams, as well as policy and guideline development teams, to ensurecross-program integration, and guidelines are be prepared to assist field staff asrequired.
Comments:This section should include MNR’s commitment to developing managementdirection which incorporates an ecosystem approach. Consideration should begiven to the joint MNR/MOE/MMAH position that supports an ecosystem basedwatershed management framework. The ecosystem approach should be definedin the glossary and incorporated into the Environmental Study Report process.(MOE EAAB and CR)
5
The Class EA must ensure that what takes place in provincial parks andconservation reserves meets the test of ecosystem sustainability and ecologicalintegrity. (GWT)
Response:This section briefly introduces a much longer discussion on this topic in Appendix4, which traces MNR’s commitment to an ecosystem approach. MNR’s corporateplanning system embodies the ecosystem approach, from the vision ofsustainable development and mission of ecological sustainability through to theselection of protected areas, and the principles and approaches employed inpreparing a management plan.
In the Draft Class EA, ecosystem sustainability and ecological integrity areembodied in the range of criteria to be applied in the screening process. This hasnow been reinforced in the Submitted Class EA in the description of thescreening process, in the introduction to Section 5: Project Evaluation andConsultation, and in Appendix 5: Assessing the Significance of EnvironmentalEffects.
In terms of a definition, an ecosystem approach to management is as much aphilosophy as it is a set of planning and management tools. It aims to understandthe many interrelationships that may exist between the elements associated withthe social, economic and natural environments that are considered whenevaluating projects. Furthermore, it encourages people to: consider the elementsof ecosystem composition, structure and function; understand how people’sactions affect the human and natural environment; ensure that human actionsand disturbance mimic natural processes to the greatest extent possible;recognize the wide range of resource values, and; use ecological classificationsto map ecosystems. This description has been added to the Glossary inAppendix 1.
In line with the adaptive management approach, the philosophy continues toevolve in response to societal values, as does MNR’s response as the tools andsupporting science for concepts such as ecosystem sustainability and integrityalso continue to evolve. For example, through Ontario’s Living Legacy, a newinventory, monitoring and assessment initiative is being developed for Ontario’sprotected areas that will further aid in managing protected areas through anecosystem approach.
Comment:In the first point, there can also be reference to the MNR Class EA for ResourceStewardship and Facility Development and the crown land disposition planningprocesses as well. These processes also consider cultural heritage conservationin its screening. For Crown land disposition and land use permitting processes,there is specifically an MNR-MTCR Memorandum of Understanding ratified inSept. 2000 in place to screen out cultural heritage values and resources which
6
can also be applied in a parks context. A copy of this MOU will be madeavailable to you. (MTCR CHR)
Response:The MNR Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development will notapply to provincial parks or conservation reserves, as the Class EA for ProvincialParks and Conservation Reserves is intended to cover the similar and relatedtopics. In fact, MNR has attempted to design the two Class EAs with similarprinciples and approaches in mind so that stakeholders and staff can more easilyunderstand and apply the details. The matter concerning the Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) is more appropriately dealt with in Section 4.2 regardingscreening.
SECTION 3: PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THIS CLASS EA
3.1 The Class of Undertakings (page 9)
Comment:We note that land use policy and planning processes that identify andrecommend new parks and reserves are not subject to class environmentalassessment. We believe that strategic environmental assessments are beneficialin determining the appropriateness of any resource extraction or harvestingactivities within protected areas. (PC)
Response:As a tool to examine the impacts associated with policies, programs and plans,strategic environmental assessment (SEA) can be a useful approach. Manyaspects of SEA are incorporated into MNR’s corporate planning systemdescribed in Appendix 4. Though SEA would not apply in the context of thisClass EA, we will continue to consider the potential application of SEA (or it’scomponents) in other levels of the planning system.
Comment:The Class EA should give rise to a management system that does not currentlyexist, one that will put rigour, transparency, science and accountability at theforefront. It should ensure that the many complex and difficult issues surroundingthe maintenance of ecosystem health and function (issues that are seldom, ifever, addressed in park management plans now) will be addressed in futureplans. A thoughtful, well-developed Class EA that considers, in a holistic manner,the environmental impacts of park management practices, the alternativemeasures that can be taken to prevent, mitigate and/or minimize these impacts,and an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives couldachieve this. This Class EA, however, places the park management systemoutside the scope of the document. It is the park management system thatshould be undergoing environmental assessment. (GWT)
7
Section 3.1.1 states that: “Land use policy and planning processes that identifyprovincial parks and conservation reserves are not the subject of this Class EA. Itis only after the land use planning recommendations have been made that thisClass EA applies.” Appendix 4 does not demonstrate that the existing “land useplanning”, consultation and documentation requirements meet or exceed whatwould be required under the EAA or the parent Class EA. Recommend that MNRinclude more detail on public consultation requirements/opportunities, approvalsobtained at the end of these processes (Public Lands Act approval? Planning Actapproval?) and appeal mechanisms. (MOE ER)
Response:The Class EA is being prepared in accordance with the Terms of Referenceapproved by the Minister of the Environment, including the required scope as setout in section 2.1 of the TOR:
“The Class EA will not address land use planning and policy decisionsrelated to the identification of new recommended provincial parks andconservation reserves. Nor will the Class EA address the permitted usedPolicy. These are policy matters of government. The Class EA addressesthe activities of establishing new sites through the passage of appropriateregulations, and management of activities/projects. The Class EA willexplain how land use planning decisions and the permitted uses policyprovide a context for the Class EA”
Appendix 4 is intended to provide a brief context, however, the lengthy processesfor developing management direction have not been included, over and abovethe list of policies, procedures, guidelines, etc. provided in Appendix 3. The ClassEA aims to build on the current management system described in Section 2.
Comment:All of the points listed under Section 3.1 link to the provisions for mineral-relatedinterests and activities. This section further highlights the need to includediscussions of mineral-related activities in the Class EA. (MNDM)
Response:As noted in a previous response (Section 1) an amendment to the Class EA willaddress the relevant aspects that are subject to the Class EA.
3.1.1 Establishing, Amending and Rescinding Boundary Regulations (page 9)
Comment:Provide some examples of the projects that will be subject to this Class EA, forexample, where will MNR be establishing, amending or rescinding boundaries?(MOE EAAB)
8
Response:This section of the Submitted Class EA now refers to examples. In brief, theOntario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy identifies 332 proposed newprotected areas and 46 additions to protected areas. MNR is currentlyestablishing and amending boundaries for these areas.
3.1.3 Managing Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (page 10)
Comment:We support the concept of taking the precautionary approach using screening foracquisitions which are in Category A. (PC)
No response required.
Comment:Should the term ‘signature site’ be also included in the list of projects- or is thisterm conservation reserve similar to signature site? Another activity could be‘shoreline stabilization work’ within provincial parks/conservation areas, whichmay also have significant impacts to high archaeological potential areas. (MTCRCHR)
Response:The term ‘signature site’ was introduced in the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land UseStrategy (1999) as a way to profile nine important areas of Ontario. These areasmay contain land use designations other than provincial parks or conservationreserves. Therefore it is not appropriate to refer to signature sites. With respectto shoreline work, only a few examples are noted in this section while Appendix 2is more detailed.
3.2 Area of the Undertaking (page 11)
Comment:The Draft Class EA should make it clear the EA process will not apply to areas ofexisting mining land tenure that adjoin or are encircled by new protected areas,and that these will not be subject to the EA process unless and until the miningtenure lapses through normal process. (MNDM)
It must be made clear that this Class EA does not apply to mineral explorationand development activities on Forest Reserves, in accordance with thegovernment’s commitments in the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy(also relates to Section 5.1). (MNDM)
Response:This matter will be clarified in Section 3.2. This Class EA is not intended to applyto Forest Reserves.
9
EA requirements currently apply in provincial parks and conservation reserves,for example, related to disposition for roads, and will continue to apply throughthis Class EA. This will be included in the List of Projects in Appendix 2.
EA requirements for Crown land, including Forest Reserves, are provided for in avariety of existing exemption/declaration orders and the Class EA for Small ScaleMNR Projects (currently being reviewed and renamed the Class EA for ResourceStewardship and Facility Development).
Comment:As per this section, it states “..for example, inventories and studies are oftenundertaken in support of park or conservation planning processes tounderstand….the location and significance of natural and cultural values”. Is thisa mandatory procedure for all new and existing provincial parks and conservationareas? (MTCR CHR)
Response:The Ontario Provincial Parks Planning and Management Policies (1992), theOntario Provincial Parks Planning Manual (1994) and the Conservation ReservesProcedure (1997) contain provisions related to the inventory and/or description ofcultural resources. Such information provides the basis for informed decisionsabout zoning, development and environmental management. Cultural inventoriesare undertaken where there are known or potential cultural resources.
3.3 The Environment Affected and the Expected Range of Effects (page 11)
Comment:The Class EA should state explicitly that the priority for planning in provincialparks and conservation reserves is to protect and enhance the naturalenvironment. Projects that would have a negative and significant effect on thenatural environment should not be approved. Also applies to “Factors for theAssessment of Significance” in Appendix 5 (wording suggested). (HO, WCA,EAR)
In Section 4.4, “Balanced consideration of all the ratings from Table 4.1” wouldequally reflect social, economic and environmental concerns. Environmentalconcerns should be the top priority and weighted more than the economicimplications and social preferences of planning decisions. (EAR)
Response:The Ontario provincial parks system has four objectives: protection (which is theparamount objective), heritage appreciation, recreation and tourism. The ClassEA is required to provide for consideration of all aspects of the environment asdefined by the EA Act. The relative emphasis to be placed on environmentalprotection in provincial parks will vary depending on the class of park and theapplicable zone. The highest level of protection for the natural environment will
10
be afforded in Wilderness, Nature Reserve, Natural Environment and Waterwayparks, and in Nature Reserve, Wilderness and Natural Environment zones.
Conservation reserves are intended to protect representative natural areas andspecial landscapes. The protection objective will guide conservation reserveplanning and project implementation, with consideration given to the traditionalpublic land uses in the reserve.
The screening process described in Section 4.0 is intended to identify issues forfurther investigation and consideration, and to identify an appropriate category,rather than to apply priorities. This has been more clearly stated in the SubmittedClass EA, and the reference to “balanced consideration” in Section 4.4 has beendeleted.
In Appendix 5 of the Draft Class EA, Section 5.1 states that the value of thefeature or situation affected should be considered in the assessment of thesignificance of environmental effects. Section 5.3 advises that there should besome assignment of priorities or weighting to evaluation criteria when comparingalternatives.
3.4 Partnerships (page 12)
Comment:With respect to partnerships, we note that MNR will first review the proposal todetermine if it is reasonable, appropriate and consistent and if so, only thenwould the Class EA apply. Without benefit of a strategic environmentalassessment we have concerns relating to the formal process used fordetermining reasonable, appropriate and consistent. (PC)
Response:The process described in Section 2.1 and Appendix 4 will provide the planningcontext for determining whether a partnership project is reasonable, appropriateand consistent. It is not anticipated that major development projects will occurwhere there is no management direction.
Comment:Here and in Section 3.5.2, define the “Protected Area Program” as it is unclearwhat is meant by this. Refer to the Glossary for a definition. (MOE EAAB)
Response:For clarity we have removed the word “program” and refer to provincial parks andconservation reserves, or to protected areas. For the purposes of the Class EA,“protected area” refers to a provincial park or conservation reserve, eitherexisting in regulation, or recommended through an approved land use directionsuch as Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) or District Land UseGuidelines.
11
Comment:The last paragraph is unclear when making reference to Private proposals suchas tourist accommodation. If it is suggesting that the responsibility for filling theobligations of this Class EA, such as preparing an Environmental Study Report orconsulting with the Pubic are the sole responsibility of the proponent of a privateproposal then this may have great cost implications for the tourist operator toundertake. Perhaps it could be cost shared with MNR to lesson the burden ofcosts on the private operator and to act as a willing partner in possible newventures. (MTCR RBT)
Response:Such arrangements would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.However, as a matter of principle, MNR recognizes that there is a cost to doingbusiness for most proponents. Sound environmental planning is one.
3.5 Integration with Other EA Processes (page 13)
3.5.1 Other MNR EA Mechanisms (page 13)
Comment:This section states: “…as a means to identify any specific concerns that mayrequire special consideration and to ensure protection of values, MNR will …”MNR should distinguish between minor and major road and bridge work indetermining the required process under the Parks and Conservation Reservesand Timber Management Class EAs. (DOM)
Response:This will be clarified to explain that such requirements are intended to apply tonew roads or crossings. Requirements associated with forest access roads andcrossings will be included in the evaluation during forest management planning,with careful consideration of protected area values. Related needs are identifiedin Section 3.5.1 of the Submitted Class EA.
Comment:We would like a greater explanation as to how the higher evaluation andconsultation standards will be adopted to ensure protected area values andstakeholder concerns are fully considered in the section referring to CanoeRoutes using other mechanisms. (PC)
Response:As indicated in Section 3.5.1, where a single evaluation is undertaken to satisfymore than one MNR process, the higher evaluation and consultation standards(i.e. the standards in the most rigorous process) will be adopted. The applicableprocesses would be reviewed to identify which has the most rigorous standardfor each aspect of the evaluation, and the harmonized process will reflect thesestandards.
12
Comments:The use of examples in this section is appreciated. The reference to “waterwayprovincial parks” should be followed by a reference to the definition in Appendix4, page 66. (MOE ER)
Response:Many such cross-references are possible but these can negatively impact on thereadability of a document. Therefore we have opted not to include one here.
Comment:Mention should be made in this section of the commitments in the Ontario’sLiving Legacy land use strategy to allow access to areas of existing mining landtenure and for mineral exploration in protected areas where there is provinciallysignificant mineral potential. These are “permitted by provincial policy”. (MNDM)
Response:This section is intended to deal with the integration of EA mechanisms. Thesuggestion is a matter that is covered in Section 7.2 of the Land Use Strategyand in the response in Section 1 of this report.
3.5.2 EA Mechanisms Used by Other Agencies and Sectors (page 14)
Comment:It would be beneficial to identify how the higher standards were applied to theexample provided with the Realty Corporation for sewage works servingmunicipal and park needs. (PC)
Response:In this case the requirements of the Municipal Class EA would be supplementedby the requirements of the Class EA for Provincial Parks and ConservationReserves where these are more stringent, and the harmonized process willreflect these standards.
Comment:There should be an appendix listing committed new electricity projects so thatreviewers can understand the implications of these provisions. (WCA)
Response:When the regulation process is carried out, a thorough examination of files,existing tenure and past commitments is undertaken. This information may beincluded in the public information associated with the regulation process.
Comment:Proposed hydroelectric projects within parks and conservation reserves shouldnot be allowed to happen. Proposed hydroelectric projects or modifications toexisting projects outside of a protected area boundary but sharing a watershed
13
should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they do not compromise theprotected area values. (JL)
Response:Hydroelectric projects may only be considered for protected areas where abinding commitment was made by the Province prior to the identification of thenew and expanded protected areas in the proposed Ontario’s Living LegacyLand Use Strategy on March 29, 1999. This section of the Class EA is intendedto ensure that careful consideration is given to protected area values.
Comment:MTO agrees with the Draft Class EA’s statement that “this Class EA will applywhen the Ontario Realty Corporation carries out land acquisition on behalf ofMNR”. However, MTO understands that proposed revisions to ORC’s Class EAmay change ORC’s approach to other EA proponents with approved Class EAs.We understand that ORC is considering the application of its own Class EA ifORC’s Class EA classifies the project into a “higher” EA category than the clientagency’s Class EA. MTO has expressed concerns to ORC and MOE related tothe potential for duplication of Class EA approvals/assessments. (MTO)
MTO appreciates that the Ontario Parks Class EA recognizes highway projects(except for those in protected areas) can be addressed through other EAmechanisms (e.g. MTO’s Class EA). (MTO)
Response:MNR participates in discussions on the ORC Class EA, and has noted thispossible difference.
Comment:There are some occasions where MTO needs to acquire aggregates fromprovincial parks for highway construction. We understand from this Draft ClassEA that MTO would now need to complete the screening criteria (Table 4.1) foraggregates in protected areas. This requirement would be in addition to otherrequirements MTO would also need to fulfil under the Aggregate Resources Act.Is this a correct interpretation? (MTO)
Response:First, in the unusual situation where aggregates may need to be sourced in aprovincial park or conservation reserve as is currently the practice, the matterwould first need to be addressed as a policy statement in the management plan(e.g., Lake Superior Provincial Park management plan). Examples of informationneeded to support the management plan would include: earth and life scienceinventories; provisions for protecting the area’s values; identification ofenvironmental impacts and mitigative measures; evaluation of alternativesources, and; provision for site rehabilitation. If approved in the managementplan, then the comment regarding screening is correct. However, in this context,
14
the screening is intended as a tool to identify issues or concerns that may requirespecial consideration; it is not intended to necessarily require the application of aproject evaluation and consultation process described in Section 5. This isbecause EA coverage is being provided through the MTO Class EA process,following review through a management plan process for the protected area.
As currently written the Provincial Standards for aggregate resources do notexplicitly recognize or apply to provincial parks and conservation reserves, andtherefore could not be substituted for the requirements of this Class EA.
Comment:Under this section, it states that “Some projects occur in provincial parks andconservation reserves that are not intended to meet protected area programgoals and objectives. Such projects are not subject to this Class EA and are dealtwith through other environmental assessment mechanisms.” It then refersreaders to Appendix 2 for types of projects that are not subject to the Class EA.There is no mention of mineral resources, or mineral exploration in Appendix 2.The Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy provides for “controlledexploration’ to take place where there is provincially significant mineral potentialin new protected areas. It should be mentioned, and marked as being exemptfrom this Class EA. (MNDM)
Response:This section is intended to recognize the potential for overlap between variousEA Act mechanisms in order to minimize duplication. All projects that are notexempt under the EA Act require some form of EA coverage. For example, roadbuilding is subject to the provisions of this Class EA and have been included inAppendix 2, including reference to access for mineral exploration purposes. Withrespect to the treatment of exploration activities, a new section has been addedto the Class EA (Section 3.5.3) to reflect the response in Section 1 of this report.
3.6 Relationship of Class EA to Other Legislation and Policy
Comment:The NEC is pleased to note that the Phase II-b document addresses a number ofgeneral concerns raised in our comments on Phase II-a. The inclusion of Section3.6 and Appendices 6 and 7 clarify that the Class EA will be administered withregard to other legislation, including the Niagara Escarpment Planning andDevelopment Act, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan. (NEC)
No response required.
15
SECTION 4: CLASS EA CATEGORIES AND THE SCREENINGPROCESS
4.1 Planning Categories (page 17)
Comment:Existing activities in new or established parks and conservation reserves that donot compromise earth or life science integrity, such as fur harvesting or otherharvesting of non-forest products should be permitted. (JL)
Response:This Class EA does not establish policy for the various types of permitted uses.Where the activity may be permitted in accordance with policy, then this ClassEA will apply. In the example cited, the notes provided for projects 95 and 96 inAppendix 2 (of the Draft Class EA) deal with the issuance and renewal oflicences or permits for commercial use of a resource. These will not requirescreening if they are provided for by policy.
4.1.1, 4.1.2 – Category A and B Projects (page 17)
Comments:The definition of Category A projects should be different to Category B. Projectsmay be misclassified as “A” and could evade public scrutiny. (WCA, EAR)
The descriptions of Category A and B projects are not the same in this section asin Table 4.2. These descriptions should be made consistent with the descriptionsin the approved Terms of Reference. Category A and B projects should not beidentical in definition-Category B projects have the potential for some adverseenvironmental effects, whereas the definition for both Category A and B projectsin the Draft Class EA indicates that there are low negative environmental effectsfor both. Examples of the types of projects that will fall under Categories A and Bwould be helpful, rather than referring to Appendix 2. (MOE EAAB)
Response:The descriptions of Category A and B projects have been revised to reflecthigher potential environmental effects from Category B projects, and Sections4.1.1, 4.1.2 and Table 4.2 have been revised to ensure that they are consistent.
It is noted however that the Terms of Reference were intended to provideflexibility to refine project categories, as follows:
“The following outline of schedules represents one possible approach ofcategorizing activities/projects. This will be finalized through publicconsultation to develop a Class EA document.”
16
4.1.3 Category C – Potential for medium to high environmental effects and/orpublic or agency concern (page 18)
Comment:Category C projects should be defined as having “the potential for significantenvironmental effects and must proceed under the full planning anddocumentation procedures” as defined in the approved TOR. Statementsdescribing each category should be consistent throughout the document. (MOEEAAB)
Response:See the above discussion of the Terms of Reference. Statements describingeach category have been reviewed for consistency in the submitted document.
4.1.4 Category D – Subject to an Individual EA (page 18)
Comment:For the purposes of accountability, predictability and environmental protection,certain types of projects (including commercial forestry, sport hunting, miningexploration, mining development, roads and major development projects such asroofed accommodations, visitor centres, conference centres, golf courses andpublic utilities and projects and activities not considered to be permitted in aparticular class or zone) should automatically be assigned to Category D. Also,they should not be subject to exemption or declaration orders. This list should notpreclude requests for bump-ups for other matters that would otherwise fall underSchedules A-C. The approved Terms of Reference acknowledge that Class EAsare best suited for “similar and recurring projects having a predictable range ofenvironmental effects with identifiable and proven mitigation measures”. Theseprojects do not possess all of these attributes and thus are better suited to anindividual EA. Any attempt to subject these activities to a Class EA abbreviatedprocess would contravene the purposes and specific provisions of both the EAAct and the Provincial Parks Act. The addition of Category D projects, whichwould require individual EAs, is a step in the right direction, but the retention ofdiscretion in the MNR to decide when a project falls into Category D isunacceptable. WL and SLDF are amenable to participating in a process to assistMNR in defining the enumerated classes of projects. (CELA, SLDF, WL)
There should be a list of activities and projects that are excluded from the ClassEA and automatically require an individual EA. Activities should first be screenedfor their potential impact on the natural environment. High impact activitiesshould immediately go to an individual EA, even if social or economicimpacts/concerns are minimal or non-existent. Examples of such activities aremining, hunting (sport or population control) and road development. Listing theseactivities under “Category D” does not guarantee an individual EA. (EAR)
17
There should be an additional category, Category F, for major industrial orinfrastructure projects that should automatically be subject to full environmentalassessment. (HO)
Only if a project is assigned by MNR to Category D will MOE see anenvironmental assessment (and given the time and cost of an individual EA,there are sure to be many creative end-runs here). (GWT)
We have been endeavouring to develop a mechanism to address therequirement for a list of projects that would automatically require individualenvironmental assessments if they were to be considered within provincial parksor conservation reserves. … A fundamental challenge in this effort is to find away to ensure inappropriate development is given the broadest possible publicand scientific review prior to being considered for approval, but will work withinthe existing system. This is not an easy task. … Our proposed solution is to usethe development of the Class EA to signal that from this point forward thatintroduction of environmentally significant non-conforming uses, either throughpolicy change or site-specific permission, will no longer be permitted without thescrutiny by a full individual environmental assessment. We therefore advise thatthe following projects/activities be listed in Category D as those that would triggeran individual EA (see table). We view these as non-conforming uses and do notsupport them within parks and protected areas in any way (list provided). (WLsupplementary)
Response:In response to the input on this matter, MNR has included a select number ofCategory D projects in the Submitted Class EA. The following table presents thelist of projects suggested by the Wildlands League and others, and provides abrief rationale for why each project has or has not been included in the list ofCategory D projects.
Some types of projects noted in the comments are either not subject to this ClassEA and therefore have not been included in the Category D list, or were felt to beadequately covered by the provisions of a Category C project evaluation whichincludes an Environmental Study Report (ESR). The ESR process encouragespublic input and review, and as experience has shown, can effectively deal withcomplex proposals. MNR concurs that the introduction of significant non-conforming uses should be subject to an individual EA.
18
Suggested Projects forCategory D
(Wildlands League input)
MNR Response
Mining (claim staking,advanced exploration, minedevelopment)
As noted in the related response in Section 1, these activities willbe addressed at a later stage through an amendment to thisClass EA. No category is assigned.
Logging (including roadbuilding, borrow pitsconstruction, and bridgebuilding)
Logging is conducted only in Algonquin Park and is subject to theTimber Class EA. The decision to carry out logging is not subjectto the EA Act as this is a permitted use decision of government.Road building, borrow pits and bridge building are all covered,either in this Class EA for provincial parks and conservationreserve purposes, or through the Timber Class EA for projectsassociated with forest management activities.
All new roads required fornon-park purposes (allaccess roads)
Generally, new access roads that are covered by this Class EAwill be screened to determine the appropriate category. Forestaccess roads are covered by the Timber Class EA, which has asimilar planning process to an individual EA, as well as theadditional provisions in Section 3.5.1 of this Class EA. MTOroads that may affect a park or conservation reserve are treatedby the MTO Class EA, in addition to the provisions in Section3.5.2. In both cases, the additional provisions are intended toensure the protection of park or conservation reserve values.Roads to access existing mining claims or leases in accordancewith the OLL Land Use Strategy are dealt with in this Class EAand are now listed in Appendix 2 of the Submitted Class EA.
New motorized access trailsfor snowmobiles, ATV’s andother vehicles
The introduction of these new uses must first be approvedthrough a public management planning process, which in itselfhas similar public planning requirements to an individual EA. Ifapproved, the project would then be screened to determine whichproject evaluation and consultation process would be used toassess the effects. Following this process, members of the publiccan request MOE to designate the project for an individual EA.Therefore, the planning system contains enough checks andbalances for these types of projects without requiring individualEA status by assigning them to Category D.
Hydro electricdevelopments
Hydro electric development is not permitted in protected areas,therefore there is no need to place this project in a category. Theprior commitments that exist will be treated through theRegulations and Guidelines for the Environmental ScreeningProcess for Electricity Projects. In addition, Section 3.5.2provides additional safeguards.
Hydro transmission orrailway corridors
The Class EA for Transmission Facilities and/or the CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Act apply to these cases, in additionto the safeguards described in Section 3.5.2.
Construction or majorupgrade of roofedaccommodation forcommercial use (non-parkinfrastructure) that includesaccommodation,conference centres,restaurants, etc.
Forms of roofed accommodation and facilities such as visitorcentres, which may contain restaurants, are permitted uses inprovincial parks where approved through a managementplanning process.
Large-scale facilities such as hotel/lodge/resort and conferencecentres (that are not intended to meet the objectives of the parkor reserve) are not considered normal infrastructure and havebeen included on the Category D list.
19
Suggested Projects forCategory D
(Wildlands League input)
MNR Response
In addition, MNR will continue to evaluate, on a case by casebasis, options for locating facilities outside of protected areas orin communities as means to minimize negative effects in theprotected area and to optimize benefits for neighbouringcommunities.
Golf courses This will be listed in Category D.Sport hunting Sport hunting may be permitted, in accordance with policy. The
making of regulations to establish seasons for hunting is notwithin the subject matter of this Class EA.
Stocking of non-native fishand game species
A principle objective for protected areas is to protect nativebiodiversity, therefore MNR concurs that the stocking of new non-native species be listed as a Category D project, with certainprovisions. For example, where non-native species have becomenaturalized (e.g., rainbow trout), are of recreational interest, anddo not affect native biodiversity, then continued managementmay be considered, subject to policy provisions. Additionalinformation has been added to the Submitted Class EA onstocking and introductions.
All commercial and parkrelated infrastructuredevelopment or re-development that:• involves clearing more
than 1 hectare of nativevegetation;
• Will be within thehabitat of RTE species;
• Will result in significantchanges in roadlocation;
• Requires alteration of astream or river course.
This Class EA is designed for the purpose of dealing with most ofthese situations through screening to identify potential effects andthen through an appropriate project evaluation and consultationprocess. Subjecting all such development to the full provisions ofan individual EA is not necessary.
Alterations of a stream or river course would not normally beundertaken in a protected area, as the objective is to protect. If aspecific project were proposed, beyond the routine aspects oferosion control projects for example, the screening processwould be an appropriate vehicle to assess the scope and scale ofpotential effects.
Through MNR’s experience, a few additional projects should also be listed. TheSubmitted Class EA will include a list of Category D projects, including thosenoted above, as follows:
• Large scale facilities (e.g., hotel/lodge/resort and conference centres) notintended to meet the objectives of the provincial park or conservation reserve.
• Stocking of fish species not present in Ontario (exotic) (i.e., other than nativeor naturalized species).
• Restoration of fisheries through water body reclamation.• Golf courses.• New marinas (i.e., where associated services, dredging, shoreline alteration,
or other activities may be required to support the activity, as opposed toindividual docks or a series of docks with no services).
• Alpine ski resorts.
20
Comment:Category D undertakings should be defined as “having the potential forsignificant and undetermined environmental effects” as defined in the approvedTOR. (MOE EAAB)
Response:See the above discussion regarding the Terms of Reference.
4.2 The Screening Process (page 18)
Comment:In Figure 4 and on pages 20 and 21, reviews that relate to mineral exploration ordevelopment should be done jointly by MNR and MNDM staff. (MNDM)
Response:MNDM will be consulted for advice and input where appropriate, as are otherministries and agencies.
Comment:The reference to “duration” (first bullet, page 20) is an oversimplification. Mostlarge projects which would be classified according to Appendix 2 as‘development” projects other than “operations” or “resource management” wouldhave long term effects which extend beyond construction. (MOE ER)
Response:Duration has been removed in this context as the intent of this comment isaddressed with respect to monitoring in Section 5.3 and guidance in Appendix 5.
Table 4.1: Screening Criteria
Comment:Suggest that the overall need for the proposed project/activity to occur and theavailability of alternatives or alternative methods should be added as screeningcriteria under “general considerations”. (EAR)
Response:The need for a project is normally established through MNR’s planning system(see Section 2 and Appendix 4 of the Draft Class EA). However, where this hasnot been the case, alternatives to the project will be considered in Category Band C evaluations. In addition, alternative methods for carrying out the projectwill also be included in project evaluations for Category B and C projects, asdescribed in Section 5 of the Submitted Class EA.
21
Comment:Significant woodlands and significant valley lands are not specifically identified inthe screening criteria. These are important in the context of Section 2.3 of theProvincial Policy Statement (PPS). (MMAH)
Response:The proponent is required to identify applicable legislation and requiredapprovals for a project in the screening (Section 4.2, Step 1), and in a CategoryB or C project evaluation (Sections 5.1, 5.2). Appendix 7 makes it clear that theProvincial Policy Statement must be complied with. The terms used in theProvincial Policy Statement to identify significant areas were developed by MNRand others to assist in meeting the planning requirements of municipalities indeveloping Official Plans and approvals under the Planning Act. These terms arenot commonly applied to features in provincial parks and conservation reserves,however the Policy Statement’s requirements will be met or exceeded throughMNR’s planning system, and through this Class EA. For example, in parkmanagement plans, areas are zoned according to their significance.
Comment:“Natural Environment” includes a criterion relating to species at risk, as defined inAppendix 1. The PPS is designed to protect significant portions of the habitat ofendangered and threatened species, which are themselves defined terms. Whatis the relationship between these various definitions? (MMAH)
Response:The criterion asks whether the project will “affect species at risk or their habitat”.If there is a potential effect under this criterion, this will initiate steps that willensure compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement. Note that potential forserious negative effects on species at risk is one of the criteria that may lead toassignment of a project to Category D (see Table 4.2).
Comment:In the “Land Use and Resource Management Considerations” category, impactson existing land uses are not identified as a criterion. These impacts may beimportant in certain site-specific situations. The relationship between generalpermitted uses in Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, or other land usestrategies, are also not identified. (MMAH)
Response:Potential effects on existing land uses would be identified under a number of thescreening criteria, including effects on air quality, water quality or quantity, trafficpatterns, noise, views and aesthetics, effects on uses, persons or propertyoutside the park or reserve, and displacement of people, businesses, institutionsor public facilities.
22
Comment:“Social, Cultural and Economic Considerations” includes a cultural heritage andlandscape features criterion. Does this include significant archaeologicalresources, significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes?The PPS defines each of these latter terms, which are important from aconservation perspective. (MMAH)
Response:“Cultural heritage and landscape features” is intended to encompass significantarchaeological resources, significant built heritage resources and culturalheritage landscapes. Identification of an effect under this criterion will lead tosteps specified in the Class EA that will ensure that the Provincial PolicyStatement is complied with.
Comment:The requirement to “have regard to” the PPS, which appears elsewhere in theDraft Class EA, could also be included as a screening criterion. (MMAH)
Response:Proponents may be required to meet several legislative and policy requirementssuch as the PPS and others identified in Appendix 7. The screening table isintended to identify potential environmental effects rather than legislative andpolicy requirements.
Comment:Agricultural and rural issues may be a factor when considering a new orexpanded park or reserve. These should be considered under the Land Use,Cultural and Economic Considerations. The Provincial Policy Statement statesthat agriculture is to be protected. (OMAF)
Response:Displacement of agricultural land would be encompassed by the criterion: mayaffect “or commit a significant amount of a non-renewable resource”. This hasbeen clarified in the Submitted Class EA. Other rural issues would be addressedby the “Social, Cultural and Economic Considerations” criteria.
Comment:Part of the screening criteria should be to include a statement in the (social,cultural and economic considerations) "affects tourism values of a licensedresource-based tourism operator". This is certainly an impact consideration,when reviewing any new project proposals under this EA. (MTCR RBT)
Response:This type of business is included under the criteria “local business”. In fact,tourism values are a consideration in several criteria in Table 4.1.
23
Comment:Within this table under social, cultural and economic criteria, it states thefollowing: …"affect cultural heritage or landscape features". The term ‘features’however is not defined or further expanded anywhere in the document, so werecommend that there is a definition or further description of the term.` Whatdoes MNR consider to be cultural heritage resources and how are they identifiedin the provincial park context? Perhaps it can be broken down intoarchaeological heritage resources both land and marine, built heritage, andcultural heritage landscapes.
Any built feature that is 40 years or older should be assessed for heritagesignificance and a process for doing this should be referenced in this EAdocument. (for reference purposes, please see the Ontario Reality Corporationdraft Class EA category B checklist for a good example of how to screen forheritage significance). It would appear that this Class EA process cannot capturecultural heritage resources if they have not already been identified. Thereshould be more statements on how cultural heritage resources are beingidentified. For built heritage, there can be the following terms used: heritagebuildings, significant structural remains, and heritage landscape features.
There can be further breakdown of cultural heritage features for archaeologicalresources as well, such as “registered archaeological sites, cemeteries andarchaeological potential areas”. There can be additional criteria incorporatedhere which refers specifically to what is meant by ‘archaeological potential’ - andthere can be criteria such as close proximity to water sources, known\provinicallyregistered archaeological sites, favourable topographic characteristics, etc. thatcan provide more information when screening for potential areas. Reference canbe made to the MTCR-MNR MOU screening criteria ratified in Sept. of 2000.
Aboriginal considerations criteria appear to be adequate. There are overlapshowever with some of the ‘cultural heritage features’ stated in the previous tablesection above in the form of archaeological sites, burial sties, pictographs whichshould be further referenced and defined under cultural heritage features. (MTCR CHR)
Response:The criteria have been amended to:
• affect archeological sites, cemeteries, and areas with archaeologicalpotential.
• affect cultural heritage landscapes, including built heritage resources,significant structural remains, and heritage landscape features.
There is a need and an opportunity to development further guidance onidentifying and evaluating cultural resources. MNR suggests that MTRC andMNR work together to review existing guidance and to formulate new material.
24
This could include a review of the memorandum of understanding so that anyadditional direction is relevant to this Class EA and the protected areas program.
4.4 Criteria for Assigning Projects to Categories A,B,C, or D (page 23)
Comment:The final category designation should be reviewed by a committee ofstakeholders and not just the MNR. For instance, there is very little differencebetween Categories A and B except for the perceived public interest. If theMinistry misjudges public interest or fails to inform the public properly, projectsmay be misclassified as Category A and evade public scrutiny. (EAR)
Response:The Submitted Class EA has been modified to make a stronger distinctionbetween Category A and B projects. Section 4.3 provides for the MNR managerto initiate consultation where there is uncertainty as to the possible level of publicinterest. In addition, the review process for developing this Class EA aims to gainagreement on the types of projects that should be treated as Category A andthose that should be screened to make a judgement on a case by case basis.The approach permits MNR to elevate projects or the public to request thatprojects be elevated to higher categories of evaluation and consultation.Furthermore, as described in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, a process is included foramending and reviewing the Class EA in response to experience gained inimplementing it in coming years. These provisions aim to ensure effectivenessand efficiency.
Comment:It is not clear here or in the appendix, how these levels will be assigned. Forplanning categories A, B, C, D, we recommend there is more definition and/orthat there are a few actual ‘examples’ of activities for provincial parks orconservation areas illustrating how these categories are assigned. Category C(middle of the page) mentions "…Appropriate type of management direction…"what does this mean and could an example be included to what is meant here?(MTCR CHR)
Response:As the Class EA, and Section 4.4/Table 4.2 in particular, are intended to beapplicable in a wide range of situations across the province, MNR feels it isappropriate to provide broad guidance and to be careful not to unnecessarilyrestrict the discretion of managers who must consider the many variables whenmaking a decision. Experience gained in implementing the Class EA will aid inidentifying additional needs. Therefore, at this time we have not made furthermodifications based on this comment.
With respect to ‘appropriate type of management direction’, this is defined inSection 2, in the glossary (Appendix 1) and described in Appendix 4 (4.3).
25
SECTION 5: PROJECT EVALUATION AND CONSULTATIONPROCESSES FOR CATEGORY B AND C PROJECTS
Comment:Although cumulative effects are not identified as a requirement within the EA Act,we have concerns with respect to the lack of consideration of the potential foradverse cumulative effects for Category A projects and activities. (PC)
Response:Ontario Parks would like to work with Parks Canada to gain their experience inthis area. Many of these projects have been ongoing for decades. Over time,effects may become apparent and may need to mitigated. As the science andsupporting tools become available in the future, it should be possible to do morein the area of inventory, monitoring, assessment, and reporting, and thereby gaina better sense of the cumulative effects.
Comment:Time for reaction to proposals should be changed from 30 to 90 days to allowNGOs to consult with their membership. (HO, WCA, EAR)
Response:In MNR’s experience, only a small proportion of projects generates significantpublic concern. It would not be necessary to extend the consultation period for allof the Category B and C projects that take place in provincial parks andconservation reserves. When projects do generate public concern, however,MNR recognizes that a longer consultation period may be appropriate. While thiswas already reflected in the discussion of Step 2 and 4 for Category C projects,in Section 5.2, the Submitted Class EA has been modified in the introduction toSection 5 to permit flexibility where required in both Category B and C projects.Managers can be flexible in considering requests for additional time.
5.1 Category B Project Evaluation and Consultation Process
Comment:Step 3 listed under Section 5.1 mentions that the public input will be documentedas well as any changes to the project made as a result of this input. How willpublic concerns be resolved? If concerns are not resolved, does this mean anautomatic bump up to a higher level of screening? (EAR)
Response:There may not be full consensus on projects in all cases. Differences in opinionmay remain between MNR and stakeholders, and among stakeholders. Whereefforts to resolve concerns have been unsuccessful, MNR may initiate alternativedispute resolution as described in Appendix 8, Section 8.5.3. After considering
26
input from stakeholders or the results of alternative dispute resolution, MNR maydecide to:
• Modify a project,• Not proceed with a project,• Undertake a project evaluation under a higher category, or;• Continue to evaluate the project under the originally identified category.
If MNR decides to proceed with a project where significant differences in opinionremain, stakeholders have the option of initiating a request for a Part II Orderunder the Environmental Assessment Act as described in Section 6.6.
Comments:There can be some general indication in this section that MNR staff should carryout as much pre-screening as possible using screening processes, prior tocarrying out consultation with appropriate agencies and ministries. This initialscoping down by the MNR can help streamline the process, and help focus onissues which most concern the agency. The volume of consultation should bemanageable depending on the volume of MNR activities falling under this classEA, given the reduction of resources in some ministries including MTCR. (MTCRCHR)
Response:The screening process and the project evaluation and consultation processes inthis Class EA are intended to achieve this comment.
Comment:Step 2: Public Notice -- There should be a list of potential key stakeholders thatwill be contacted in the EA document, perhaps in the appendices. If there is anMNR activity that will impact on a known heritage resource or there is a potentialheritage resource, e.g. a building over 40 years old, a landscaped area etc.identified local stakeholders should be consulted such as a municipal LocalArchitectural Conservation Advisory Committee or local heritage group.Stakeholders such as a LACAC (where there is one) would be identified to beconsulted; also local municipal planning department, municipal clerk's office,local historical society, and MTCR, etc. (MTCR CHR)
Response:Appendix 6 presents a list of agencies that will be consulted. In addition, MNRmaintains provincial and local distribution lists that are used for public planningprocesses. They can be tailored to meet specific needs, such as where a culturalresource exists, and are updated from time to time as required.
27
5.2 Category C Project Evaluation and Consultation Process (page 29)
Comment:ESRs may be prepared by unqualified people, or at a time when naturalvegetation is dormant. Specifications for preparing ESRs should be refined andtightened. (WCA)
Response:The discussion under “Level of Detail” in Appendix 5, Section 5.2 addresses theneed to use specialist help or to initiate studies where gaps are identified in theinformation required to identify the significance of environmental effects. It is theresponsibility of the Manager who signs the Statement of Completion to ensurethat the requirements of the Class EA have been met. The processes for bothCategory B and Category C projects are carried out in a public context andinclude opportunities for stakeholders to raise concerns regarding the evaluation.
Comment:Step 3: Project Evaluation and Preparation of a Draft Environmental StudyReport (ESR). The section states that "…The draft ESR will include"… pleaseinclude ‘cultural heritage resources’ and potential impacts to these resources inthe list of things that will be described. Or that the definition of the ‘environment’clearly identifies the whole range of cultural heritage resources as well in this EAdocument. (MTCR)
Step 6: Notice of Completion, Opportunity to Inspect the Final EnvironmentalStudy Report. Part of completing the final ESR, there can be also references tospecial technical studies being completed. Both category B and Cevaluations\consultations section should make references to the need for furthertechnical heritage resource studies if warranted, after using the screeningprocesses. MTCR technical studies required would include items such as Stage1-4 archaeological assessments by licensed archaeologists and built heritagestudies by qualified heritage consultants if a significant built heritage structuralfeature is being affected. (MTCR)
Response:With respect to step 3, the screening process is completed first and any potentialeffects on values are noted. This key step in the process informs the next steprelated to preparation of the ESR. Therefore, we have not modified step 3 in theinterest of brevity.
With respect to step 6, we have included this information below Table 4.1regarding screening where it is more closely associated with the revisedscreening criteria. Section 5.1 and 5.2 already refer to the potential for additionalinformation needs.
28
5.3 Monitoring of Projects
Comment:All monitoring activities should be well documented in the project file for CategoryB projects and in the ESR for Category C projects. (MOE EAAB)
Response:Section 5.3 states that monitoring records will be maintained on the project file.This will be the case for both Category B and Category C projects, since the ESR(which will be included in a Category C project file) is a discrete document thatwill remain unchanged unless it is formally amended.
A template for a project monitoring record is included in Appendix 9.
Comment:There can be mention of monitoring by qualified licensed archaeologists orprovincial officials in very sensitive high potential areas for archaeologicalfeatures and human burials/unmarked cemeteries during and after projectconstruction.
There can be discussion in this section about impact mitigation and mitigationmeasures. For example, there can be an example included here that indicatesrequiring an archaeological assessment carried out by a licensed archaeologist,to ensure project identifies significant archaeological resources, and mitigatingany impacts through systematic excavation and/or working around anarchaeological/cultural heritage feature. (MTCR CHR)
Response:It is MNR’s practice to discourage development in areas of known culturalsignificance, and to encourage further study in areas expected to have potentialfor cultural resources. The Submitted Class EA now says in Section 3.1.3 thatassessments may be carried out by a licensed archaeologist to ensure that anypotential archaeological resources are identified. If archaeological resources areunexpectedly found during a project (e.g., unearthed), the project will stop untilappropriate mitigation has been established.
29
SECTION 6: CLASS EA ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES ANDPROCEDURES
6.1 Monitoring the Implementation of this Class EA (page 35)
Comment:An annual report shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of theEnvironmental Assessment and Approvals Branch within, for example, within 90days of the end of the reporting period that is established. The annual report isintended to be a self-evaluation mechanism by which a proponent can determine:
• the number and types of projects planned and implemented in accordancewith the class EA parent document.
• the problems that are being experienced at the Class EA projects level; and• the degree of effectiveness the Class EA project has in providing an effective
and efficient planning process and in protecting the environment.
The Notice of Completion will be submitted to the appropriate MOE RegionalOffices. Minimum contents of an annual report are provided. (MOE EAAB)
Response:The requirements set out in Section 6.1 of the Draft Class EA are generally inaccordance with MOE’s expectations, and this section has been revised to reflectthe outstanding matters raised.
Comment:As part of the Class EA monitoring, there can be also monitoring of anycompleted cultural heritage master plan or comprehensive study for a provincialpark and conservation area. Such plans and its associated digital potentialmapping if developed should also be forwarded, shared and/or accessed by theMTCR for joint MNR-MTCR monitoring.
There can be measurement and evaluation of the volume and findings of allarchaeological /cultural heritage assessments conducted over time from MNRactivities in these areas. Monitoring can also include a review of the consultationprocesses with affected ministries and agencies, how effective these are andwhat improvements can be made at both the MNR and the affected Ministry.(MTCR CHR)
Response:MNR agrees that information and mapping should be shared between ministries.Ways to do this, including methods of measurement, evaluation and monitoring,should be discussed further and introduced, as appropriate, as a guideline ormemorandum of understanding. Once they have been developed and tested, itmay be appropriate to amend the Class EA in the future.
30
6.2 Amendments to This Class EA (page 35)
Comment:If an amendment relates to mineral exploration and development or to access toareas of mining land tenure or provincially significant mineral potential, it shouldalso be reviewed by MNDM. (MNDM)
Response:MNDM will be consulted on such matters.
6.2.1 Minor Amendments (page 35)
Comment:The second sentence of paragraph 2 should be revised to read: “MNR wouldconsult with the Director of EAAB and reach an opinion….” As the proponent, it isthe responsibility of MNR to consult, rather than the Director of the EAAB’sresponsibility. (MOE EAAB)
Response:The Submitted Class EA has been revised to incorporate the requested wording.
6.3 Review and Renewal of the Class EA (page 36)
Comment:This section should be updated to reflect a five-year review cycle. Class EArenewal is being phased out and is being replaced with a five-year reviewprocess. An example of this can be found in the Municipal Class EnvironmentalAssessment Planning Process. This time-frame would allow MNR to review andupdate the Class EA and maintain the substance of the existing process whilemaking any necessary changes. (MOE EAAB)
Response:The Submitted Class EA has been revised to incorporate a five-year reviewperiod.
6.5 Transitional Provisions (page 36)
Comment:This section includes a limitation that projects must be commenced within twoyears of the date of approval of the Class EA. It is assumed that this means thatguidelines for “controlled exploration” and deregulation must be completed withintwo years. It is therefore assumed that this does not mean that explorationprograms undertaken within areas of identified provincially significant mineralpotential more than two years from now will be subject to screening. (MNDM)
31
Response:This section is intended to clarify how the Class EA will be phased in and not toplace limitations on approvals. The processes associated with exploration inprovincially significant mineral areas have not yet been established, as noted inthe initial response pertaining to Section 1 of this report.
6.6 Bump Up (Part II Order) Provisions (page 37)
Comment:Remove all references to “Bump Up” and replace with “Part II Order Request” inaccordance with Section 16 of the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). (MOEEAAB and CR)
Response:In the Submitted Class EA MNR has complied with MOE’s request. For clarity,the term “bump up” will be retained in the glossary and explained in the body ofthe Class EA since it is in common use both within MNR and among manystakeholders. MNR has made every effort to produce a “plain language”document that can be readily understood by MNR practitioners, agencies and thegeneral public.
APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
Comment:The definition of Management Direction refers to planning documents that“provide appropriate direction in keeping with their purpose and differentinformation standards used in their preparation”. What is meant by “differentinformation standards”? Do they relate to different types of parks, or does thisrefer to different MNR policies and guidelines? (MOE ER)
Response:‘Different information standards’ refers to the level of information that is requiredto prepare each type of management direction. For example, an interimmanagement statement is intended to identify the values to be protected,resource management prescriptions necessary to protect these values, and anyrestrictions on the use of natural resources that may be needed to ensureprotection. They are prepared with available information and therefore significantor permanent decisions are deferred. On the other hand, preparation of amanagement plan is normally carried out after more detailed inventory of theprotected area’s earth, life, recreation and cultural features has been completed,as required for the circumstance. This information allows planners to identifysensitive areas or features that must be protected. With this information and withthe benefit of public input at several stages in the planning process, managementplans can prescribe significant capital development or stewardship projects that
32
are permanent or more significant in terms of potential effects. The sameprinciples hold for statements of conservation interest.
Comment:The definition of Project Evaluation is awkward and uninformative. Projectevaluation is a process for determining the positive and negative impacts of aproposed undertaking, and involves collecting and analyzing information on theproblem to be addressed, possible alternatives to the problem, and impacts ofthese alternatives on the environment. It is not just a process for fulfillingrequirements of an approved Class EA. (MOE ER)
Response:In the submitted Class EA the term "project evaluation and consultation process"is now applied to the processes required for Category B and Category C projectsin Section 5. The term "project evaluation" is restricted to the evaluationsrequired in Step 3 for each of these processes. This has been reflected in theglossary.
Comment:Additional terms/definitions to be considered in this section can be (as borrowedfrom an MNR-MTCR MOU document on land dispositions):
Cultural Heritage Site - Registered , Designated or Identified: are sites that arecontained within the MNR - NRVIS values information database and/or arelocally identified sites that are deemed to be a cultural heritage resource. Aregistered archaeological site is identified on an MTCR site registration form withan assigned Borden number. A designated cultural heritage site is one that isrecognized with some degree of protection under the Ontario Heritage Act. Anidentified cultural heritage site is one that is neither registered or designated, butis still recognized as being significant on a heritage inventory, list or map.
Cultural Heritage Resource Categories: Resources can take one or the more ofthe following four forms-
• Cultural Heritage Landscapes, are discreet groupings of visible human madefeatures with heritage significance,
• Structural Heritage Remains - are the remains of any buildings or structuresor built properties made by people and identified as being important to acommunity,
• Archaeological Remains - are cultural features or objects found at or belowthe surface of the land or under water and are significant to the understandingof the history of a people or place,
• Traditional Use Sites - are geographically defined areas supporting current orpast human use as gathering areas, spiritual sites, and places of worship orcemeteries.
33
Heritage Trails: are historic pathways, portages, canoe routes, railways, spurlinesand roadways that have been or continue to be used. (MTCR CHR)
Response:MNR concurs with the need to develop further guidance and definitions.However, at this time we have not incorporated these definitions, as they need tobe carefully considered in the context of all guidance used in the preparation ofdocuments. For example, terminology should be consistently used in culturalheritage inventories and cultural management plans, protected areamanagement direction (such as Interim Management Statements, Statements ofConservation Interest, management plans), as well as environmentalassessment reports as prescribed in the Class EA.
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PROJECTS
Comment:In Appendix 2, there is no mention of mineral resources. The “PSMP” project(provincially significant mineral potential), a huge project instigated in support ofthe Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy, will identify the mineral potential ofeach protected area. Although they may be considered to be included in “naturalresources” as outlined in Section 3.1.3, they must be mentioned in the expandedinformation included in Appendix 2. (MNDM)
The Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy provides for “controlledexploration” to take place where there is provincially significant mineral potentialin new protected areas. References to mineral potential and “controlledexploration” should be added to Appendix 2, and the relevance to the screeningprocess clearly indicated. For example, most or all activities that are allowedunder “controlled exploration” should fall into Category A. Deregulation of an areato allow advanced exploration or development might be Category B (routineresource management) or Category C (effects require mitigation techniquestailored to the project). (MNDM)
Response:As noted in the response in Section 1, since the detailed procedures associatedwith exploration in areas with provincially significant mineral potential have notyet been completed, the Class EA will need to be amended in the future tofurther recognize EA requirements. Roads to permit mining access in accordancewith the Ontario’s Living Land Use Strategy (1999) have been included inAppendix 2.
Comment:Project ID 8A: “Manage or Control an Animal Population (Minor)” should bescreened for allocation to a category. (EAR)
34
Response:This change has been made, along with other changes to this section of the tableto make it more comprehensive.
Comment:Control of nuisance animals (project ID 9) is often dealt with by hunting andtrapping which does not prevent the problem from reoccurring but has significantimplications for the entire ecosystem. The public must be given an opportunity tosubmit input. (EAR)
Response:This project is intended to deal with situations in provincial parks or conservationreserves such as beaver dams that flood an area and threaten other values suchas roads, boardwalks, or buildings, or black bear in a campground. Alternativemethods are used to prevent problems in the first place. For example, “beaverbaffles” (screens that permit water flow through culverts) are used to avertdamage to roads. Ontario Parks also educates campers about proper etiquette toavoid attracting animals and thus causing a problem. When control is necessary,different methods are employed such as relocation or shooting), depending uponthe situation. The onus is on MNR to ensure proper conservation of species, inaccordance with its mandate. MNR’s practices are open to public scrutiny at alltimes, however it would be impractical to issue a notice for each situation.
Comment:Use of the term “Resource Stewardship” in the Class EA document is confusing.In Section 3.1.3 it is implied that resource stewardship includes management ofnatural, cultural and recreational resources, whereas in Appendix 2 it includesmanagement of natural and cultural resources only and all recreational resourcesappear to be lumped under “Development and Related Operations”. Item 6,Appendix 2 should be renamed “management of natural and cultural resources”(MOE ER)
Response:Section 3.1.3 has been modified by removing recreation from the description ofresource stewardship. Nevertheless, we recognize that some overlap isinevitable.
Comment:Footnotes 11 and 16 in Item 6 do not appear to be related to the subject. (MOEER)
Response:The footnotes have been merged into the tables in Appendix 2 or other parts ofthe Class EA to simplify and improve the use of the tables.
35
Comment:Project ID 22 (Manage forests in the recreation-utilization zone of AlgonquinProvincial Park): assume this includes prescribed burning for pest managementpurposes, in which case project ID 18 (Undertake prescribed burning andmanaged natural fire) would not apply in the R/U zone. (AFA)
Response:The Class EA for Timber Management on Crown Lands will cover Forestmanagement activities in Algonquin Provincial Park, including prescribed burningand managed natural fire in the recreation-utilization zone. A coordinated(harmonized) approach with this Class EA (as described in Section 3.5.1 of theSubmitted Class EA) may be appropriate in such cases where prescribedburning or managed natural fire is also being planned in other zones of the park.
Comment:Box #23. Cultural Resources Management - Lumping archaeological, built andcultural landscape resources together does not work well as they are dealt withseparately through identification and mitigation. We suggest separate categoriesfor all three types of resources.
More explanation of what is meant by restoration and reconstruction ofarchaeological resources. Usually they are identified and then left alone orexcavated. You may restore and reconstruct a heritage building, but this is notnecessarily applicable to archaeological resources.
It is not clearly explained how one would determine Category A, B or C here. Weprefer the approach where the activity is described and given a suggestedCategory, e.g. for alteration of a built heritage resource, that would be a CategoryB activity automatically to be filled out directly in the table.
There is a whole range of potential impacts and mitigative actions for builtheritage and cultural landscapes that should be included in the EA document.More definitions are needed, for example for "restoration", "rehabilitation","preservation", "alteration", "maintenance", etc. (see comment below). The ORCclass EA already has a good set of definitions and guidelines for this, why notuse the same ones? (MTRC CHR)
Response:MNR concurs with the need to develop further guidance. At this time we believethe two entries cover off the limited nature and amount of this type of work—mostprotection is passive rather than active redevelopment or restoration. Thereforewe have not split out the projects further nor incorporated the longer ORCdefinitions. As noted in an earlier response, the definitions should be fullyconsidered along with these suggestions in the context of all guidance used inthe preparation of protected area plans, cultural heritage inventories and
36
environmental assessment reports. A comprehensive guideline to support alllevels of planning, prepared by MTCR and MNR, can be considered.
Comment:Project ID 26 (Conduct historically authentic activities) – since this falls intoCategory A, it should be limited to a small scale. (WCA) Screening should occurto encompass the broad range of activities this term may encompass. (EAR)
Response:This project has been deleted from the list as it was ill-defined. Many projectsunder this heading could fall under the previous two, and those that don’t will bescreened as they would fall under the “other project” heading.
Comment:In the section referring to in-water work repairs, we did not note any mention ofthe timing of activities to avoid sensitive spawning periods. (PC)
Response:There are a number of mitigation measures that may be applicable to in-waterwork repairs, including timing of activities to avoid sensitive spawning periods.Project implementation must be undertaken in accordance with relevant policies,procedures, guidelines, standards and manuals. The current key relevant supporttools are described in Appendix 3. Also, a new section concerning mitigation hasbeen added to the Class EA (Section 5.3).
Comment:More projects should require screening, for example under project ID 48(Establish and maintain back-country sites, e.g. canoe, hike-in, boat-in, fly-insites), 60 (Develop and maintain forest access road or water crossing) and 86(Provide visitor programs and services). In particular the assessment of newforest roads should be strengthened beyond that of the Class EA for TimberManagement. (HO, WCA)
Response:Back-country sites are considered to have low potential environmental effectsthat can be mitigated by established techniques.
The required process for forest access roads and water crossings is provided inthe Class EA for Timber Management, as discussed in Section 3.5.1 (referred toin the table). This process will be supplemented with additional requirements toprotect park and conservation reserve values, as required.
Visitor programs or services have minimal effects as they do not includeconstruction. Staff must exercise discretion in terms of how programs could affecta resource. For example, it is inappropriate to visit or draw attention to anendangered species nesting site on an organized hike.
37
Comment:Project ID’s 41 Buildings and Structures, 63 Landscaping, 69 CommercialTourism Accommodation, 85 General Operations, etc. There is no recognitionthat these resources may also be found to have heritage significance and wouldthen be treated as heritage resources. (MTCR CHR)
Response:These and many others of the 90 projects listed may have an effect. The purposeof listing projects in this appendix is the distinguish between projects with lowpotential for environmental effects and those that may have some and that wouldbe identified through the screening process. In addition, significant activities areundertaken in accordance with management plans and/or Environmental StudyReports, both of which give consideration to cultural heritage resources.
Comment:Project ID 61 (Develop and maintain roads and other facilities associated withforest management in the recreation-utilization zone of Algonquin ProvincialPark) does not include maintenance of existing roads in areas outside the R/Uzone. Also, it does not address the decommissioning of roads associated withforestry activities (wording suggested). Assume that aggregate extraction forroad work is covered by the Class EA for Timber Management and the ParkManagement Plan. (AFA)
Response:This has been clarified by removing the phrase “in the recreation-utilization zone”as this was not intended to exclude that portion of the project. It is important tonote that this project, including aggregate extraction, is guided by both the ClassEA for Timber Management as well as the park management plan for AlgonquinPark.
Comment:Project ID 62 states that “develop and maintain transportation and utility corridorsthrough a park or reserve (non-MNR proponent) is exempted from this Clas EAbecause this activity would be subject to other provincial or federal EAs.” Thiswould not apply to roads to be built or maintained by a private sector proponent,which are not subject to the EA processes listed in footnote 23. (MOE ER)
Response:Private access roads are not permitted in provincial parks or conservationreserves, by policy. Roads for mining access are subject to the Class EA.
Comment:Project ID 65: Cut or Spray Vegetation should be screened for a higher level ofevaluation. (EAR)
38
Response:Cutting and spraying of vegetation for groundskeeping, right of way maintenanceand hazard removal is considered to have low potential environmental effectsthat can be mitigated by established techniques. For example, provincial parkpolicy promotes the use of non-pesticide measures and directs staff to usepesticides and herbicides sparingly and for very high infestations only.Regulations pertaining to handling and application are adhered to and priorpublic notice is provided when they are used (signs).
Comment:Project I.D.s 84, 105: (Other projects not listed): the note should be specific as towhen Category A is appropriate. (WCA)
Response:Assignment of unlisted projects to Category A must be undertaken in accordancewith the screening process and clearly justified and documented, as discussed inSection 4.1.2.
Comment:Footnote 1: The government has committed that “controlled exploration” can takeplace in areas of provincially significant mineral exploration. It is thereforeassumed that there will be no requirement to wait for a site management plan tobe done before controlled exploration if a site is found to have provinciallysignificant mineral potential, and the guidelines for “controlled exploration” andderegulation have been completed. (MNDM)
Response:Refer to the response to the MNDM comment in Section 1.
Comment:Footnote 3: The requirements for a major boundary amendment suggest that afull fledged EA assessment might be required for advanced exploration formining activities to take place if a discovery worthy of development is made in aregulated area of provincially significant mineral potential. A full fledged EAprocess might find that deregulation should not take place, in clear contraventionof the commitments of the Ontario’s Living Legacy land use strategy. Thereshould be special provisions for an exemption from the EA process to allow thecommitment to deregulate if a discovery is made to be fulfilled. (MNDM)
Response:Refer to the response to the MNDM comment in Section 1.
Comment:Footnote #11 defines the difference between maintenance and development,more detail is necessary here and there should be more terms dealing withcultural resource management. The Ontario Realty Corp. ORC Class EA
39
Heritage Process document, definitions would provide more guidance here(definitions provided). (MTCR CHR)
Response:Per earlier responses, MNR suggests that these be dealt with comprehensivelyfor all aspects of the protected areas program.
Comment:Footnote 12: This definition of a minor building should be reformulated forconservation reserves, which do not have access or development zones. (WCA)
Response:This has been clarified in the Submitted Class EA, in the Appendix 2 tableconcerning minor development.
APPENDIX 3: POLICIES, PROCEDURES, GUIDELINES,POLICIES, MANUALS
Comment:There are several MOE guidelines which apply to this Class EA and should belisted in the document (list provided). (MOE EAAB and CR)
Response:Thank you for providing references to these guidelines. They have beenincorporated into Appendix 3, along with guidelines from other ministries.
Comment:The Construction and Mitigation Handbook was an appendix in the previousClass EA on Small Scale MNR Projects. This document should be updated andincluded in the new Class EA. (MOE CR)
Response:The Small Scale Class EA is currently being revised and the handbook will besuperceded by other guidelines, such as those identified in Appendix 6.
Comment:Given its importance in guiding land use development through a provincial policy-led planning system, the Provincial Policy Statement should also be referred to inAppendix 3. (MMAH)
Response:The Provincial Policy Statement has been added, and it is still referencedincluded in Appendix 7 in connection with the Planning Act.
40
Comment:A number of guidelines are listed as being “in preparation”. These should includethe guidelines for identifying areas of provincially significant mineral potential,and for “controlled exploration”. (MNDM)
Response:These have been added to Appendix 3.
Comment:Make reference to the MNR's Users Guide for the Forestry/Tourism Interface,also perhaps a mention of RSA's as well. (MTCR RBT)
Response:The Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourismdescribes a range of practices, tools and techniques that should be consideredwhen developing forest management prescriptions to protect resource-basedtourism values. They are to be used in the development of forest managementplans for those portions of the forest used for forestry and resource-basedtourism. The guidelines may also be useful during the establishment of ResourceStewardship Agreements between the the tourism and forest industries. Theguidelines have been added to Appendix 3 of the Class EA as a possible supporttool and a source for ideas. However for clarity, they have been developedspecifically for the forest management planning process and are not arequirement of the Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves.
Comment:Recommend in this section, inclusion of the following updated list of all relevantheritage guidelines and manuals:
• MNR-MTCR Memorandum of Understanding for Crown Land Dispositionsand Issuance of Work Permits for Screening Cultural Heritage Resources
• Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines• Ontario Reality Corporation Technical Guidelines for Cultural Heritage
Conservation• Guideline for the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental
AssessmentsMOEE–MTCR
• Timber Management Guidelines for the Protection of Cultural HeritageResources (MTCR CHR)
Response:These have been added.
41
APPENDIX 4: PROVINCIAL CONTEXT
4.1 Strategic Planning (page 63)
4.1.3 Provincial Park Policy (page 65)
Comment:“Ecological regions” and “ecological districts” should be defined, or the readershould be referred to definitions to be provided in the Glossary. It would be usefulto include a map illustrating examples of the six classes of parks or providewritten examples of parks which fall into these categories. (MOE EAAB)
Response:Definitions of ecological regions and ecological districts have been added to theglossary. Well known examples of the six classes of parks have been added tothe description of each class.
Comment:This section mentions the historical parks and how features in Ontario's parks areidentified. The "Topical Organization" is a very good tool for identifying provincialhistorical significance of resources, and we often recommend its use by otherorganizations for that purpose, however it does not help as much in theidentification of local heritage resources and resources that are significant fortheir architecture, engineering, landmark significance etc. The Topical wasdeveloped to discover resources that could be interpreted and presented to thepublic, it was not designed for use in the environmental assessment process, andwhile it is helpful for that purpose, it does not provide the comprehensiveidentification, evaluation, physical survey, and assessment that is necessaryhowever. (MTCR CHR)
Response:No response required.
4.1.4 Conservation Reserves Policy (page 67)
Comment:Define “natural heritage values” or refer the reader to a definition to be providedin the Glossary. Demonstrate how natural heritage values differ from provincialparks values. (MOE EAAB)
Response:On page 67, natural heritage values are used in the context of conservationreserves and are generally considered to include life science, earth science,recreational and cultural values. Provincial park values are the same.
42
4.2 Protected Area Systems Planning and Land Use Planning (page 67)
4.2.1 Systems Planning (page 67)
Comment:Aquatic diversity is referred to but a system has not yet been developed forprotecting representative aquatic habitat. It would be prudent for a system forprotecting these habitats to be described if MNR intends to include them in theClass EA process. (MOE EAAB)
Response:As indicated in the Draft Class EA, MNR is in the process of developing a formalsystem for protecting representative aquatic habitat. When it comes into effect,this will assist in identifying priority areas for protection. In the meantime, thesame principles apply in terms of screening and project evaluation. If aquatichabitat were excluded, the Class EA’s coverage of the environment as defined bythe EA Act would be incomplete and would have less protection than thatafforded by this Class EA.
Comment:These OLL land use directions are certainly important to the industry and needsto be referenced stronger, (other than a short description on page 69 of the EAdocument) to ensure that the efforts of this Ministry and the resource-basedtourism industry, as well as, the comprehensive public consultation are not lostwhen they actually begin to review projects in parks from tourism perspective.(MTCR RBT)
Response:Like other land use strategies providing land use direction, the Ontario’s LivingLegacy Land Use Strategy (1999) is a policy document for MNR and as such isintegrated throughout the ministry’s activities. Special mention isn’t necessary.
4.3 Management Planning
Comment:There can be generally, more emphasis on the initial ‘identification’ of culturalheritage resources and values within both park and conservation areas duringthe management planning process. (MTCR CHR)
Response:This is a general description only. Cultural heritage resources are consideredduring planning.
43
APPENDIX 5: ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OFENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Comment:A statement of how MOE will be involved with the review and assessment ofenvironmental effects should be referenced in the document. Issues such aswhat triggers a technical review by MOE, circulation, timing etc. should beclarified. We should ensure that projects subject to this Class EA are circulated tothe Ministry and that the technical staff are given ample opportunity to conduct areview. (MOE EAAB, CR)
Response:MOE is listed as a commenting agency in Appendix 6, and this has beensupplemented to indicate that the relevant MOE Regional Office should alwaysbe contacted in consultation regarding projects under this Class EA. Theconsultation procedures outlined in Section 5 will direct timing.
Comment:There can be references and examples of the cumulative effect of the sometimeshigh volumes of dispositions of recreational camp facilities being developed orshoreline stabilization work over a given time frame in a given geographicalregion. Some dispositions are small in size, but cumulatively, if multiple lots arebeing disposed of for development purposes, there can be adverse effects tohigh archaeological potential areas and corridors. (MTCR CHR)
Response:This comment may pertain more to areas outside of protected areas. Within aprovincial park or conservation reserve, development is guided by managementplans that should take a holistic perspective from the outset. If additions arise ata later time, then cumulative effects should be considered.
APPENDIX 6: GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Comment:OMAF can provide a more focused list of contacts to ensure that appropriatepersons are circulated and consulted. Generally, this will be the Agricultural LandUse Planning Section. Early consultation is encouraged. (OMAF)
Response:Appendix 6 has been revised to indicate that the Agricultural Land Use PlanningSection should be the first contact point.
Comment:Planning Boards should be listed as having an interest in provincial parks andconservation reserves. (MMAH)
44
Response:Planning Boards have been added to the lists of agencies to be consulted.
APPENDIX 7: OTHER RELEVANT FEDERAL AND PROVINCIALLEGISLATION
7.1 Federal Legislation (page 79)
Comment:A number of editorial changes were offered by the CEAA.
Response:These changes have been incorporated into Appendix 7.
7.2 Provincial Legislation (page 83)
Comment:Activities 20 and 21 in Appendix 2 require pesticides permits from MOE. ThePesticides Act should be included in the list of provincial legislation. (MOE ER)
Response:References to the Pesticides Act have been added to Appendices 2 and 7.
Comment:Section 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement is referenced in the discussion ofthe Planning Act. Section 3.1 of the Policy Statement, which deals with naturalhazards, is also important. Section 2.5, which provides for the protection ofcultural heritage and significant archaeological resources, may also be important.(MMAH)
The reference to Section 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement appears to beinaccurate. It states that “If development is being considered (in relation toseveral types of natural heritage features), the proponent must demonstrate thatno negative impacts on the natural feature or ecological functions will occur”.Section 2.3.1 (a) of the PPS does not permit development or site alteration in“significant wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield”. (MMAH)
Response:The description has been revised.
Comment:The second bullet in the discussion of the Planning Act should be separated intotwo bullets, as follows: “provide for planning processes that are fair, open,
45
accessible, timely and efficient”, and “integrate matters of provincial interest inprovincial and municipal planning decisions" (MMAH)
Response:The statements are separated in the Submitted Class EA.
Comments:The provincial legislation in Appendix 7 should include reference to the MiningAct. (MNDM)
There should be mention of the Tourism Act and Regulation 1037. MNR requiresthat a Resource-Based Tourism Establishment be licensed by MTCR in order todeal with Crown land issues. (MTCR RBT)
Response:These Acts have been added.
Comment:Planning Act - it should be made clearer in this section that according toOntario’s current Planning Act legislation, Section 3(5), all planning authoritiesincluding both ‘municipalities and ministries’ shall have regard to Provincial PolicyStatements (1997) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. These policystatements include specific policies referring to the conservation of significantcultural heritage resources, such as heritage landscapes, heritage buildings andstructures and archaeological sites which are located on both private and Crownland are applicable to any decision involving a landuse planning matter. (MTCRCHR)
Response:This is recognized in the appendix.
APPENDIX 8: NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION
Comments:A list of all projects, in each class, should be available for the general public, onthe web as well as on paper, so that people with an interest in a particular areacan assess the cumulative impacts of projects in that area. (HO)
Category A projects should be included in a publicly reviewable listing. (WCA)
Response:MNR has considered the use of an internet-based listing of projects, and mayinitiate such a list in the future as resources become available. It would be moredifficult to list Category A than Category B or C projects, since they are sonumerous and since they often involve routine activities that are not currently
46
documented (e.g., clean washrooms, replacing shingles on roof, collectinggarbage, etc.).
8.2 Parties to Consultation (page 87)
Comment:Planning Boards should also be listed as a party to be consulted. (MMAH)
Response:A reference to Planning Boards has been added to Appendix 8.
8.3 Conducting Public and Agency Consultation (page 88)
Comment:While there may be agreements or protocols particular to individual First Nations,all First Nations communities are self-represented and should be notified andconsulted like any other interested parties. INAC recommends that First Nationsbe contacted directly early in the project and throughout its lifetime, and that thiskind of approach be outlined in the final version of the Class EA. (INAC)
Response:Statement have been added in the introduction to Section 5 and in Appendix 8 toadvise staff to include potentially affected First Nations where they may beaffected.
Comment:Where protection of nature is concerned, NGOs with environmental focus shouldbe approached to participate in the decision making process, in a binding andauthoritative way. (WCA)
Response:MNR will consider all submissions from all interested parties in reachingdecisions on projects under this Class EA. Failure to do so could result in arequest for an individual EA (Part II Order).
Comments:Category B, C and D projects should be listed on Ontario’s EnvironmentalRegistry. (WCA)
Although a variety of notice and participation procedures are identified, postingson the Environmental Registry are not identified. (MMAH)
Response:The posting of all Category B, C and D projects on the Environmental Registrywould not be in keeping with the intent of the registry which focusses on
47
significant policy decisions. The option exists for certain high profile projects tobe posted as an information file.
Comment:The publication process favours newspapers with local circulation-notice shouldalso be given to people who live further away. All projects, A through D, shouldrequire posting at their physical location. (WCA, EAR)
Response:As indicated in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 for Category B and C projects, MNR will mailnotices to persons and agencies with a known interest. This will enable notice tobe provided to people who live further away. On-site posting is possible forsignificant projects, but would not be feasible for the many routine Category Aprojects (also see later response).
As indicated in Appendix 8, Section 8.3 of the Draft Class EA, “There should be avariety of consultation opportunities to ensure that all interested parties are ableto provide input. For example, more significant projects may generate interestamong parties located at some distance, and their different needs should beprovided for”.
Comment:Public notices in the visual media should include a map. Notices should beprominently displayed both locally and provincially. (JL)
Response:The requirements for notices in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 include a map and/ordescription of the location of the project. The notice should provide a clearindication of the location of the project, and a map is not necessary in all cases.
Comment:Although Category A projects have minimal impacts and thus do not requirepublic review or approval, local citizens should still be made aware of theupcoming change. This can be done with a simple public posting at the site of theproposed work and at the main entrances to the park or reserve. (EAR)
Response:One of the purposes of the Class EA is to obtain approval for an efficient andeffective project evaluation and consultation process (Section 1.1). The Class EAis intended to minimize the unproductive administrative burden of meeting EA Actrequirements for minor and routine projects, and to enable attention to befocused on more significant projects. Category A projects are minor in nature,and include thousands of projects and activities annually-projects such as re-roofing buildings, maintaining roads and grounds maintenance. MNR has madeadjustments to the range of projects assigned to Category A in Appendix 2 inresponse to submissions. Posting all Category A projects would divert staff time
48
from other management activities, and would not meet the purpose of the ClassEA.
Comment:Applicable Management Plans, Statements of Conservation Interest, InterimManagement Statements or the Land Use Strategy for the District should beaccessible to anyone interested, so that stakeholders can review the largerissues and the overall need for that activity in the first place. (EAR)
Response:MNR’s district, zone and park offices keep copies of these documents as theyrelate to their respective areas, and these are available for public inspection, onreasonable notice. Also, as technology improves, more of this type of informationmay become available on the internet.
APPENDIX 9: SAMPLE NOTICES AND FORMS
Comment:5. Category B Notice of Completion: “within the 30 day commencement period”should be changed to “Within 30 calendar days of this notice”. (MOE CR)
Response:This reference will be clarified in the introduction to Section 5, as opposed to thebody of the notices. Calendar days is the accepted practice and does not need tobe specified in the notices.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Comment:Nishnawbe-Aski Nation (NAN) is comprised of 49 individual First Nations. Manyof these First Nations are signatories to James Bay Treaty No. 9, and as a result,hold aboriginal, treaty and inherent rights individually as separate First Nations.NAN, as a representative political body, is not a First Nation and does not itselfhold aboriginal or treaty rights … it is not authorized to negotiate or consult onbehalf of individual First Nations members regarding aboriginal or treaty rights.We are more willing, however, to discuss with you what meaningful consultationor dialogue should be when you engage in such dialogue with each NAN FirstNation. The Province did not consult in any meaningful manner with NAN FirstNations, before the Terms of Reference for the Class EA were approved …Simply sending a letter to our office with the original draft is not sufficientconsultation. Each individual First Nation should have been consulted. Some ofthe key reasons that NAN First Nations and NAN as an organization were notprovided with an appropriate opportunity for meaningful input and consultation …are as follows:
49
1. Sufficient time and opportunity for a meaningful response by First Nations onthe proposed Terms of Reference were not provided.
2. Sufficient financial and technical resources were not provided to NAN FirstNations prior to the Terms of Reference being approved.
3. The Province has not asked NAN First Nations whether there may be anyimpact regarding the potential of impacts on aboriginal or treaty rights in theface of the proposed establishment of provincial parks and conservationreserves in this process leading up to the Class EA.
This is not to say that NAN First Nations are against and oppose all efforts ofparks and conservation. However, this must be done in a manner which isconsistent with, recognizes and accommodates the constitutionally protectedrights of the NAN First Nations. This is not a requirement which provides themere input or consultation of the First Nations as a “stakeholder” with the samelevel of input as environmental groups, the remote tourism industry, the cottagesassociations or resource development associations. These groups do not havetheir rights elevated to a constitutional status of protection. … Given the lack ofmeaningful input from NAN First Nations, together with the lack of resources, theoverall result may well be that those groups as “stakeholders” have far moreinput and influence over the overall Class EA process. This is unsatisfactory.
In the event that there can be agreement and accommodation on the Terms ofReference, NAN First Nations will be seeking the maximum level of input andreview in the overall process … including:
• Substantially extending the 30-day time period.• A series of public hearings to be held by the Environmental Assessment
Board which would include hearings in NAN communities.• A study of the issues surrounding aboriginal and treaty rights, the proposed
areas for parks and conservation reserves and the conflict between trapping,hunting, fishing and the related uses for such lands should be canvassed indetail.
• Preliminary hearings to establish the parties among the First Nations, thelength, schedule and location of hearing dates within the aboriginalcommunities.
• Input and consideration of the rights and interests of NAN First Nations.• Sufficient resources for preparing witnesses, gathering information, retaining
the technical and legal support necessary for this process. (NAN, WFN)
Response:MNR welcomes the interest and participation of NAN and First Nations in thereview of the Class EA proposals. Since the beginning of the Class EA process,there has been very little interest expressed by Aboriginal organizations, andtherefore the need to conduct broad-scale consultation was not considered. Animportant reason for this is that the Class EA, in itself, does not propose nor
50
approve the establishment of new protected areas or significant projects in localareas of the province. Rather, the Class EA provides a more stringent andcomprehensive project evaluation and consultation process than exists at thepresent time, which we believe will be of assistance to First Nations. Through thisClass EA, local First Nations that may potentially be affected would be notified;this would be the starting point for appropriate types of consultation. In addition,in many cases, projects such as establishing a new provincial park orconservation reserve on Crown lands, are first addressed through public planningprocesses such as the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy andmanagement plans.
Particular effort has been made to include First Nation’s interests in the detailedprovisions of the Class EA. For example:
• In Section 3.4, the role of First Nation’s in partnerships is noted.• In Section 4.2, the screening table (Table 4.1) includes criteria pertaining
specifically to Aboriginal and First Nations interests.• In Section 4.4 and in Table 4.2, Aboriginal interests are highlighted.• In Section 5, the introduction makes explicit recognition of the need to consult
with the affected Aboriginal community on matters concerning the evaluationof Category B and C projects.
• In Appendix 2, reference to First Nations is included where consultation isspecified in the list of projects concerning establishing, amending andrescinding boundary regulations for provincial parks or conservation reserves.
• In Appendix 6, First Nations and treaty organizations are noted.• In Appendix 7, aboriginal interests are recognized in Table A (the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act is likely to be triggered if the project is likely toaffect Indian reserve lands), and Table B which lists potential concerns.
• In Appendix 8, suggestions on consultation with Aboriginal communities areprovided to assist users of the Class EA with ideas.
A broad-based consultation initiative on the Class EA, focused at each FirstNation, is not recommended. Given that the Class EA aims to improve projectevaluation and consultation (including consideration of Aboriginal communities),and that significant decisions affecting local communities are not being madethrough the Class EA, MNR suggests that Aboriginal organizations andinterested First Nations continue to contribute to the process of improving theprovisions of the Class EA. This can be done through the review of the SubmittedClass EA and through ongoing evaluation and review of the Class EA as outlinedin Sections 6.2 and 6.3. In this way, the Class EA can be improved on acontinuous basis with the benefit of experience.
Comment:We trust that you have been in contact with any First Nations in the area and thatthey have been notified about the issues under consideration and theiropportunities to participate in the process. (ONAS)
51
Response:Refer to the previous response.
Comment:Park interpretation programs should provide education on less well known usesand heritage of protected areas such as fur harvesting, hunting, fishing,gathering, Aboriginal use etc. (JL)
ResponseAll park interpretive programs are based on park themes, and tell the park story.In those parks that have a past or current program of hunting, fishing, Aboriginaluse, etc. programs may be organized around these topics. Many parks invite thelocal First Nation to do programs. Many others invite conservation officers orfisheries biologists to do programs related to park resources. For clarity, thesematters are outside the scope of this Class EA.
Comment:MEST is in agreement with the wording of the draft document. (MEST)
Comment:The remaining sections of the Draft EA document appear to have dealt with theprocess for undertaking this EA very well, and I am sure that if the statementsmade in OLL are adhered to, the resource-based tourism industry should be ableto take advantage of the many opportunities available in our parks/conservationreserves system. (MTCR RBT)
