A Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves

Transcription

1 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,

2 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 SECTION 5: PROJECT EVALUATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESSES FOR CATEGORY B AND C PROJECTS...25 SECTION 6: CLASS EA ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PROJECTS APPENDIX 3: POLICIES, PROCEDURES, GUIDELINES, POLICIES, MANUALS APPENDIX 4: PROVINCIAL CONTEXT APPENDIX 5: ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS APPENDIX 6: GOVERNMENT AGENCIES APPENDIX 7: OTHER RELEVANT FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION APPENDIX 8: NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION APPENDIX 9: SAMPLE NOTICES AND FORMS GENERAL COMMENTS... 48

3

4 INTRODUCTION This report provides a summary of comments received as a result of distributing the Draft Class Environmental Assessment for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves. The Draft was posted for public review on the Environmental Registry on April 17, 2001 and was also mailed to approximately 180 agencies, provincial Aboriginal organizations, groups, and individuals. In total, 28 responses were received, and four meetings/discussions were held with an array of groups and agencies to discuss details (including presentations to MNR s Northeast Regional Advisory Committee comprising a variety of stakeholder representatives, and the Parks Research Forum of Ontario). Responses were received from the following: CELA DOM Interest Groups, Companies Canadian Environmental Law Association Domtar (telephone discussion) Agencies: Provincial Government AFA Algonquin Forestry Authority MAFRA Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs EAR Earthroots ONAS Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat GWT HO SLDF WL WCA JL CEAA Great West Timber Limited Hike Ontario Sierra Legal Defence Fund (2) Wildlands League Wilderness Canoe Association Individuals John Lavoie Agencies: Federal Government Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency MEST MOE: EAAB MNDM NEC MMAH CR ER Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology Ministry of the Environment: - Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch - Central Region - Eastern Region Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Niagara Escarpment Commission Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing EC Environment Canada MTO Ministry of Transportation INAC PC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Parks Canada MTCR: RBT CHR Ministry of Tourism, Culture & Recreation -Resource Based Tourism -Cultural Heritage Resources NAN WFN Aboriginal Groups Nishnawbe Aski Nation Wapekeka First Nation 1

5 The topics found in each submission are presented in sections that correspond to the Draft Class EA. Many of the responses in this report refer to the Submitted Class EA which is the final Class EA that MNR submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for review (the Submitted Class EA corresponds with phase III of the planning process). For more information about this report or the Class EA process, contact: Barton Feilders, Manager, Planning and Research Section, Ontario Parks, Telephone: (705) , or Dan Paleczny, Class EA Project Manager, Ontario Parks, 300 Water Street, Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5. Telephone: (705) , FAX: (705) , Copies of planning documents are available from us, or at: MNR thanks all who participated in the review. 2

6 INPUT AND RESPONSES PREFACE In the preface of the document make reference to pertinent parts of OLL to set a broader context to this exercise. (MTCR RBT) 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) Some provisions relating the government s commitments to the mineral sector through the Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) would be subject to the requirements of the EA Act. These provisions include the commitments to allow access across protected areas, controlled exploration to be done in protected areas, and protected areas to be deregulated where a mineral discovery worthy of development is made. All should be addressed in the Class EA. (MNDM) The Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) states that mineral exploration may occur under controlled conditions in portions of new provincial parks or conservation reserves that are identified through further analysis and consultation as having provincially-significant mineral potential. If part of a new park 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 to permitting exploration in portions of the new provincial parks or conservation reserves, 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; 3

7 Procedures for replacing land that may be removed to permit development of a mine; and Conditions for restoring land to provincial park/conservation reserve status when mining is finished. At this time, this work has not yet been completed and the nature of environmental assessment coverage that may be required for these procedures is not known. Therefore, this Class EA does not provide environmental assessment coverage for such projects. However, once these procedures have been addressed, MNR in cooperation with MNDM will prepare an amendment to this Class EA in accordance with the provisions in Section 6.2. This point has been added to Section 1.2 to acknowledge the concern. Separate from the above discussion, the Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) recognizes that the mining industry will be able to access existing mining tenure, with appropriate consideration for the protection of the values. Accordingly, allowing access existing tenure has been included in the list of projects in Appendix 2 and addressed in Section SECTION 2: PROVINCIAL CONTEXT 2.2 Management Direction and this Class EA (page 7) We are interested in how protected area values are input into the harmonized process mentioned with respect to providing management direction in conjunction with other MNR management planning processes (forest, fire, fisheries?) (PC) Protected area values are identified through recreation, life, earth and cultural resource assessments and inventories, and through public input during management planning processes. In addition, staff participate in management planning teams, as well as policy and guideline development teams, to ensure cross-program integration, and guidelines are be prepared to assist field staff as required. Comments: This section should include MNR s commitment to developing management direction which incorporates an ecosystem approach. Consideration should be given to the joint MNR/MOE/MMAH position that supports an ecosystem based watershed management framework. The ecosystem approach should be defined in the glossary and incorporated into the Environmental Study Report process. (MOE EAAB and CR) 4

8 The Class EA must ensure that what takes place in provincial parks and conservation reserves meets the test of ecosystem sustainability and ecological integrity. (GWT) This section briefly introduces a much longer discussion on this topic in Appendix 4, which traces MNR s commitment to an ecosystem approach. MNR s corporate planning system embodies the ecosystem approach, from the vision of sustainable development and mission of ecological sustainability through to the selection of protected areas, and the principles and approaches employed in preparing a management plan. In the Draft Class EA, ecosystem sustainability and ecological integrity are embodied in the range of criteria to be applied in the screening process. This has now been reinforced in the Submitted Class EA in the description of the screening process, in the introduction to Section 5: Project Evaluation and Consultation, and in Appendix 5: Assessing the Significance of Environmental Effects. In terms of a definition, an ecosystem approach to management is as much a philosophy as it is a set of planning and management tools. It aims to understand the many interrelationships that may exist between the elements associated with the social, economic and natural environments that are considered when evaluating projects. Furthermore, it encourages people to: consider the elements of ecosystem composition, structure and function; understand how people s actions affect the human and natural environment; ensure that human actions and disturbance mimic natural processes to the greatest extent possible; recognize the wide range of resource values, and; use ecological classifications to map ecosystems. This description has been added to the Glossary in Appendix 1. In line with the adaptive management approach, the philosophy continues to evolve in response to societal values, as does MNR s response as the tools and supporting science for concepts such as ecosystem sustainability and integrity also continue to evolve. For example, through Ontario s Living Legacy, a new inventory, monitoring and assessment initiative is being developed for Ontario s protected areas that will further aid in managing protected areas through an ecosystem approach. In the first point, there can also be reference to the MNR Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development and the crown land disposition planning processes as well. These processes also consider cultural heritage conservation in its screening. For Crown land disposition and land use permitting processes, there is specifically an MNR-MTCR Memorandum of Understanding ratified in Sept in place to screen out cultural heritage values and resources which 5

9 can also be applied in a parks context. A copy of this MOU will be made available to you. (MTCR CHR) The MNR Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development will not apply to provincial parks or conservation reserves, as the Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves is intended to cover the similar and related topics. In fact, MNR has attempted to design the two Class EAs with similar principles and approaches in mind so that stakeholders and staff can more easily understand and apply the details. The matter concerning the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is more appropriately dealt with in Section 4.2 regarding screening. SECTION 3: PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THIS CLASS EA 3.1 The Class of Undertakings (page 9) We note that land use policy and planning processes that identify and recommend new parks and reserves are not subject to class environmental assessment. We believe that strategic environmental assessments are beneficial in determining the appropriateness of any resource extraction or harvesting activities within protected areas. (PC) As a tool to examine the impacts associated with policies, programs and plans, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) can be a useful approach. Many aspects of SEA are incorporated into MNR s corporate planning system described in Appendix 4. Though SEA would not apply in the context of this Class EA, we will continue to consider the potential application of SEA (or it s components) in other levels of the planning system. The Class EA should give rise to a management system that does not currently exist, one that will put rigour, transparency, science and accountability at the forefront. It should ensure that the many complex and difficult issues surrounding the maintenance of ecosystem health and function (issues that are seldom, if ever, addressed in park management plans now) will be addressed in future plans. A thoughtful, well-developed Class EA that considers, in a holistic manner, the environmental impacts of park management practices, the alternative measures that can be taken to prevent, mitigate and/or minimize these impacts, and an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives could achieve this. This Class EA, however, places the park management system outside the scope of the document. It is the park management system that should be undergoing environmental assessment. (GWT) 6

10 Section states that: Land use policy and planning processes that identify provincial parks and conservation reserves are not the subject of this Class EA. It is only after the land use planning recommendations have been made that this Class EA applies. Appendix 4 does not demonstrate that the existing land use planning, consultation and documentation requirements meet or exceed what would be required under the EAA or the parent Class EA. Recommend that MNR include more detail on public consultation requirements/opportunities, approvals obtained at the end of these processes (Public Lands Act approval? Planning Act approval?) and appeal mechanisms. (MOE ER) The Class EA is being prepared in accordance with the Terms of Reference approved by the Minister of the Environment, including the required scope as set out in section 2.1 of the TOR: The Class EA will not address land use planning and policy decisions related to the identification of new recommended provincial parks and conservation reserves. Nor will the Class EA address the permitted used Policy. These are policy matters of government. The Class EA addresses the activities of establishing new sites through the passage of appropriate regulations, and management of activities/projects. The Class EA will explain how land use planning decisions and the permitted uses policy provide a context for the Class EA Appendix 4 is intended to provide a brief context, however, the lengthy processes for developing management direction have not been included, over and above the list of policies, procedures, guidelines, etc. provided in Appendix 3. The Class EA aims to build on the current management system described in Section 2. All of the points listed under Section 3.1 link to the provisions for mineral-related interests and activities. This section further highlights the need to include discussions of mineral-related activities in the Class EA. (MNDM) As noted in a previous response (Section 1) an amendment to the Class EA will address the relevant aspects that are subject to the Class EA Establishing, Amending and Rescinding Boundary Regulations (page 9) Provide some examples of the projects that will be subject to this Class EA, for example, where will MNR be establishing, amending or rescinding boundaries? (MOE EAAB) 7

11 This section of the Submitted Class EA now refers to examples. In brief, the Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy identifies 332 proposed new protected areas and 46 additions to protected areas. MNR is currently establishing and amending boundaries for these areas Managing Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves (page 10) We support the concept of taking the precautionary approach using screening for acquisitions which are in Category A. (PC) No response required. Should the term signature site be also included in the list of projects- or is this term conservation reserve similar to signature site? Another activity could be shoreline stabilization work within provincial parks/conservation areas, which may also have significant impacts to high archaeological potential areas. (MTCR CHR) The term signature site was introduced in the Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) as a way to profile nine important areas of Ontario. These areas may contain land use designations other than provincial parks or conservation reserves. Therefore it is not appropriate to refer to signature sites. With respect to shoreline work, only a few examples are noted in this section while Appendix 2 is more detailed. 3.2 Area of the Undertaking (page 11) The Draft Class EA should make it clear the EA process will not apply to areas of existing 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 mining tenure lapses through normal process. (MNDM) It must be made clear that this Class EA does not apply to mineral exploration and development activities on Forest Reserves, in accordance with the government s commitments in the Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (also relates to Section 5.1). (MNDM) This matter will be clarified in Section 3.2. This Class EA is not intended to apply to Forest Reserves. 8

12 EA requirements currently apply in provincial parks and conservation reserves, for example, related to disposition for roads, and will continue to apply through this 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 a variety of existing exemption/declaration orders and the Class EA for Small Scale MNR Projects (currently being reviewed and renamed the Class EA for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development). As per this section, it states..for example, inventories and studies are often undertaken in support of park or conservation planning processes to understand.the location and significance of natural and cultural values. Is this a mandatory procedure for all new and existing provincial parks and conservation areas? (MTCR CHR) The Ontario Provincial Parks Planning and Management Policies (1992), the Ontario Provincial Parks Planning Manual (1994) and the Conservation Reserves Procedure (1997) contain provisions related to the inventory and/or description of cultural resources. Such information provides the basis for informed decisions about zoning, development and environmental management. Cultural inventories are undertaken where there are known or potential cultural resources. 3.3 The Environment Affected and the Expected Range of Effects (page 11) The Class EA should state explicitly that the priority for planning in provincial parks and conservation reserves is to protect and enhance the natural environment. Projects that would have a negative and significant effect on the natural environment should not be approved. Also applies to Factors for the Assessment of Significance in Appendix 5 (wording suggested). (HO, WCA, EAR) In Section 4.4, Balanced consideration of all the ratings from Table 4.1 would equally reflect social, economic and environmental concerns. Environmental concerns should be the top priority and weighted more than the economic implications and social preferences of planning decisions. (EAR) The Ontario provincial parks system has four objectives: protection (which is the paramount objective), heritage appreciation, recreation and tourism. The Class EA is required to provide for consideration of all aspects of the environment as defined by the EA Act. The relative emphasis to be placed on environmental protection in provincial parks will vary depending on the class of park and the applicable zone. The highest level of protection for the natural environment will 9

13 be afforded in Wilderness, Nature Reserve, Natural Environment and Waterway parks, and in Nature Reserve, Wilderness and Natural Environment zones. Conservation reserves are intended to protect representative natural areas and special landscapes. The protection objective will guide conservation reserve planning and project implementation, with consideration given to the traditional public land uses in the reserve. The screening process described in Section 4.0 is intended to identify issues for further investigation and consideration, and to identify an appropriate category, rather than to apply priorities. This has been more clearly stated in the Submitted Class EA, and the reference to balanced consideration in Section 4.4 has been deleted. In Appendix 5 of the Draft Class EA, Section 5.1 states that the value of the feature or situation affected should be considered in the assessment of the significance of environmental effects. Section 5.3 advises that there should be some assignment of priorities or weighting to evaluation criteria when comparing alternatives. 3.4 Partnerships (page 12) With respect to partnerships, we note that MNR will first review the proposal to determine if it is reasonable, appropriate and consistent and if so, only then would the Class EA apply. Without benefit of a strategic environmental assessment we have concerns relating to the formal process used for determining reasonable, appropriate and consistent. (PC) The process described in Section 2.1 and Appendix 4 will provide the planning context for determining whether a partnership project is reasonable, appropriate and consistent. It is not anticipated that major development projects will occur where there is no management direction. Here and in Section 3.5.2, define the Protected Area Program as it is unclear what is meant by this. Refer to the Glossary for a definition. (MOE EAAB) For clarity we have removed the word program and refer to provincial parks and conservation reserves, or to protected areas. For the purposes of the Class EA, protected area refers to a provincial park or conservation reserve, either existing in regulation, or recommended through an approved land use direction such as Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) or District Land Use Guidelines. 10

14 The last paragraph is unclear when making reference to Private proposals such as tourist accommodation. If it is suggesting that the responsibility for filling the obligations of this Class EA, such as preparing an Environmental Study Report or consulting with the Pubic are the sole responsibility of the proponent of a private proposal then this may have great cost implications for the tourist operator to undertake. Perhaps it could be cost shared with MNR to lesson the burden of costs on the private operator and to act as a willing partner in possible new ventures. (MTCR RBT) 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 doing business for most proponents. Sound environmental planning is one. 3.5 Integration with Other EA Processes (page 13) Other MNR EA Mechanisms (page 13) This section states: as a means to identify any specific concerns that may require special consideration and to ensure protection of values, MNR will MNR should distinguish between minor and major road and bridge work in determining the required process under the Parks and Conservation Reserves and Timber Management Class EAs. (DOM) This will be clarified to explain that such requirements are intended to apply to new roads or crossings. Requirements associated with forest access roads and crossings will be included in the evaluation during forest management planning, with careful consideration of protected area values. Related needs are identified in Section of the Submitted Class EA. We would like a greater explanation as to how the higher evaluation and consultation standards will be adopted to ensure protected area values and stakeholder concerns are fully considered in the section referring to Canoe Routes using other mechanisms. (PC) As indicated in Section 3.5.1, where a single evaluation is undertaken to satisfy more than one MNR process, the higher evaluation and consultation standards (i.e. the standards in the most rigorous process) will be adopted. The applicable processes would be reviewed to identify which has the most rigorous standard for each aspect of the evaluation, and the harmonized process will reflect these standards. 11

15 Comments: The use of examples in this section is appreciated. The reference to waterway provincial parks should be followed by a reference to the definition in Appendix 4, page 66. (MOE ER) Many such cross-references are possible but these can negatively impact on the readability of a document. Therefore we have opted not to include one here. Mention should be made in this section of the commitments in the Ontario s Living Legacy land use strategy to allow access to areas of existing mining land tenure and for mineral exploration in protected areas where there is provincially significant mineral potential. These are permitted by provincial policy. (MNDM) This section is intended to deal with the integration of EA mechanisms. The suggestion is a matter that is covered in Section 7.2 of the Land Use Strategy and in the response in Section 1 of this report EA Mechanisms Used by Other Agencies and Sectors (page 14) It would be beneficial to identify how the higher standards were applied to the example provided with the Realty Corporation for sewage works serving municipal and park needs. (PC) In this case the requirements of the Municipal Class EA would be supplemented by the requirements of the Class EA for Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves where these are more stringent, and the harmonized process will reflect these standards. There should be an appendix listing committed new electricity projects so that reviewers can understand the implications of these provisions. (WCA) When the regulation process is carried out, a thorough examination of files, existing tenure and past commitments is undertaken. This information may be included in the public information associated with the regulation process. Proposed hydroelectric projects within parks and conservation reserves should not be allowed to happen. Proposed hydroelectric projects or modifications to existing projects outside of a protected area boundary but sharing a watershed 12

16 should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they do not compromise the protected area values. (JL) Hydroelectric projects may only be considered for protected areas where a binding commitment was made by the Province prior to the identification of the new and expanded protected areas in the proposed Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy on March 29, This section of the Class EA is intended to ensure that careful consideration is given to protected area values. MTO agrees with the Draft Class EA s statement that this Class EA will apply when the Ontario Realty Corporation carries out land acquisition on behalf of MNR. However, MTO understands that proposed revisions to ORC s Class EA may 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 if ORC s Class EA classifies the project into a higher EA category than the client agency s Class EA. MTO has expressed concerns to ORC and MOE related to the 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 EA mechanisms (e.g. MTO s Class EA). (MTO) MNR participates in discussions on the ORC Class EA, and has noted this possible difference. There are some occasions where MTO needs to acquire aggregates from provincial parks for highway construction. We understand from this Draft Class EA that MTO would now need to complete the screening criteria (Table 4.1) for aggregates in protected areas. This requirement would be in addition to other requirements MTO would also need to fulfil under the Aggregate Resources Act. Is this a correct interpretation? (MTO) First, in the unusual situation where aggregates may need to be sourced in a provincial park or conservation reserve as is currently the practice, the matter would first need to be addressed as a policy statement in the management plan (e.g., Lake Superior Provincial Park management plan). Examples of information needed to support the management plan would include: earth and life science inventories; provisions for protecting the area s values; identification of environmental impacts and mitigative measures; evaluation of alternative sources, and; provision for site rehabilitation. If approved in the management plan, then the comment regarding screening is correct. However, in this context, 13

17 the screening is intended as a tool to identify issues or concerns that may require special consideration; it is not intended to necessarily require the application of a project evaluation and consultation process described in Section 5. This is because 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 not explicitly recognize or apply to provincial parks and conservation reserves, and therefore could not be substituted for the requirements of this Class EA. Under this section, it states that Some projects occur in provincial parks and conservation reserves that are not intended to meet protected area program goals and objectives. Such projects are not subject to this Class EA and are dealt with through other environmental assessment mechanisms. It then refers readers 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 controlled exploration to take place where there is provincially significant mineral potential in new protected areas. It should be mentioned, and marked as being exempt from this Class EA. (MNDM) This section is intended to recognize the potential for overlap between various EA Act mechanisms in order to minimize duplication. All projects that are not exempt under the EA Act require some form of EA coverage. For example, road building is subject to the provisions of this Class EA and have been included in Appendix 2, including reference to access for mineral exploration purposes. With respect to the treatment of exploration activities, a new section has been added to 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 The NEC is pleased to note that the Phase II-b document addresses a number of general concerns raised in our comments on Phase II-a. The inclusion of Section 3.6 and Appendices 6 and 7 clarify that the Class EA will be administered with regard to other legislation, including the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan. (NEC) No response required. 14

18 SECTION 4: CLASS EA CATEGORIES AND THE SCREENING PROCESS 4.1 Planning Categories (page 17) Existing activities in new or established parks and conservation reserves that do not compromise earth or life science integrity, such as fur harvesting or other harvesting of non-forest products should be permitted. (JL) 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 Class EA will apply. In the example cited, the notes provided for projects 95 and 96 in Appendix 2 (of the Draft Class EA) deal with the issuance and renewal of licences or permits for commercial use of a resource. These will not require screening if they are provided for by policy , Category A and B Projects (page 17) Comments: The definition of Category A projects should be different to Category B. Projects may 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 as in Table 4.2. These descriptions should be made consistent with the descriptions in the approved Terms of Reference. Category A and B projects should not be identical in definition-category B projects have the potential for some adverse environmental effects, whereas the definition for both Category A and B projects in the Draft Class EA indicates that there are low negative environmental effects for both. Examples of the types of projects that will fall under Categories A and B would be helpful, rather than referring to Appendix 2. (MOE EAAB) The descriptions of Category A and B projects have been revised to reflect higher potential environmental effects from Category B projects, and Sections 4.1.1, 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 provide flexibility to refine project categories, as follows: The following outline of schedules represents one possible approach of categorizing activities/projects. This will be finalized through public consultation to develop a Class EA document. 15

19 4.1.3 Category C Potential for medium to high environmental effects and/or public or agency concern (page 18) Category C projects should be defined as having the potential for significant environmental effects and must proceed under the full planning and documentation procedures as defined in the approved TOR. Statements describing each category should be consistent throughout the document. (MOE EAAB) See the above discussion of the Terms of Reference. Statements describing each category have been reviewed for consistency in the submitted document Category D Subject to an Individual EA (page 18) For the purposes of accountability, predictability and environmental protection, certain types of projects (including commercial forestry, sport hunting, mining exploration, mining development, roads and major development projects such as roofed accommodations, visitor centres, conference centres, golf courses and public utilities and projects and activities not considered to be permitted in a particular class or zone) should automatically be assigned to Category D. Also, they should not be subject to exemption or declaration orders. This list should not preclude requests for bump-ups for other matters that would otherwise fall under Schedules A-C. The approved Terms of Reference acknowledge that Class EAs are best suited for similar and recurring projects having a predictable range of environmental effects with identifiable and proven mitigation measures. These projects do not possess all of these attributes and thus are better suited to an individual EA. Any attempt to subject these activities to a Class EA abbreviated process would contravene the purposes and specific provisions of both the EA Act and the Provincial Parks Act. The addition of Category D projects, which would require individual EAs, is a step in the right direction, but the retention of discretion in the MNR to decide when a project falls into Category D is unacceptable. WL and SLDF are amenable to participating in a process to assist MNR in defining the enumerated classes of projects. (CELA, SLDF, WL) There should be a list of activities and projects that are excluded from the Class EA and automatically require an individual EA. Activities should first be screened for their potential impact on the natural environment. High impact activities should immediately go to an individual EA, even if social or economic impacts/concerns are minimal or non-existent. Examples of such activities are mining, hunting (sport or population control) and road development. Listing these activities under Category D does not guarantee an individual EA. (EAR) 16

20 There should be an additional category, Category F, for major industrial or infrastructure projects that should automatically be subject to full environmental assessment. (HO) Only if a project is assigned by MNR to Category D will MOE see an environmental 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 the requirement for a list of projects that would automatically require individual environmental assessments if they were to be considered within provincial parks or conservation reserves. A fundamental challenge in this effort is to find a way to ensure inappropriate development is given the broadest possible public and scientific review prior to being considered for approval, but will work within the existing system. This is not an easy task. Our proposed solution is to use the development of the Class EA to signal that from this point forward that introduction of environmentally significant non-conforming uses, either through policy change or site-specific permission, will no longer be permitted without the scrutiny by a full individual environmental assessment. We therefore advise that the following projects/activities be listed in Category D as those that would trigger an individual EA (see table). We view these as non-conforming uses and do not support them within parks and protected areas in any way (list provided). (WL supplementary) In response to the input on this matter, MNR has included a select number of Category D projects in the Submitted Class EA. The following table presents the list of projects suggested by the Wildlands League and others, and provides a brief rationale for why each project has or has not been included in the list of Category D projects. Some types of projects noted in the comments are either not subject to this Class EA and therefore have not been included in the Category D list, or were felt to be adequately covered by the provisions of a Category C project evaluation which includes an Environmental Study Report (ESR). The ESR process encourages public input and review, and as experience has shown, can effectively deal with complex proposals. MNR concurs that the introduction of significant nonconforming uses should be subject to an individual EA. 17

21 Suggested Projects for Category D (Wildlands League input) Mining (claim staking, advanced exploration, mine development) Logging (including road building, borrow pits construction, and bridge building) All new roads required for non-park purposes (all access roads) New motorized access trails for snowmobiles, ATV s and other vehicles Hydro electric developments Hydro transmission or railway corridors Construction or major upgrade of roofed accommodation for commercial use (non-park infrastructure) that includes accommodation, conference centres, restaurants, etc. MNR Response As noted in the related response in Section 1, these activities will be addressed at a later stage through an amendment to this Class EA. No category is assigned. Logging is conducted only in Algonquin Park and is subject to the Timber Class EA. The decision to carry out logging is not subject to 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 conservation reserve purposes, or through the Timber Class EA for projects associated with forest management activities. Generally, new access roads that are covered by this Class EA will be screened to determine the appropriate category. Forest access roads are covered by the Timber Class EA, which has a similar planning process to an individual EA, as well as the additional provisions in Section of this Class EA. MTO roads that may affect a park or conservation reserve are treated by the MTO Class EA, in addition to the provisions in Section In both cases, the additional provisions are intended to ensure the protection of park or conservation reserve values. Roads to access existing mining claims or leases in accordance with the OLL Land Use Strategy are dealt with in this Class EA and are now listed in Appendix 2 of the Submitted Class EA. The introduction of these new uses must first be approved through a public management planning process, which in itself has similar public planning requirements to an individual EA. If approved, the project would then be screened to determine which project evaluation and consultation process would be used to assess the effects. Following this process, members of the public can request MOE to designate the project for an individual EA. Therefore, the planning system contains enough checks and balances for these types of projects without requiring individual EA status by assigning them to Category D. Hydro electric development is not permitted in protected areas, therefore there is no need to place this project in a category. The prior commitments that exist will be treated through the Regulations and Guidelines for the Environmental Screening Process for Electricity Projects. In addition, Section provides additional safeguards. The Class EA for Transmission Facilities and/or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act apply to these cases, in addition to the safeguards described in Section Forms of roofed accommodation and facilities such as visitor centres, which may contain restaurants, are permitted uses in provincial parks where approved through a management planning process. Large-scale facilities such as hotel/lodge/resort and conference centres (that are not intended to meet the objectives of the park or reserve) are not considered normal infrastructure and have been included on the Category D list. 18

22 Suggested Projects for Category D (Wildlands League input) MNR Response In addition, MNR will continue to evaluate, on a case by case basis, options for locating facilities outside of protected areas or in communities as means to minimize negative effects in the protected area and to optimize benefits for neighbouring communities. Golf courses This will be listed in Category D. Sport hunting Stocking of non-native fish and game species All commercial and park related infrastructure development or redevelopment that: involves clearing more than 1 hectare of native vegetation; Will be within the habitat of RTE species; Will result in significant changes in road location; Requires alteration of a stream or river course. Sport hunting may be permitted, in accordance with policy. The making of regulations to establish seasons for hunting is not within the subject matter of this Class EA. A principle objective for protected areas is to protect native biodiversity, therefore MNR concurs that the stocking of new nonnative species be listed as a Category D project, with certain provisions. For example, where non-native species have become naturalized (e.g., rainbow trout), are of recreational interest, and do not affect native biodiversity, then continued management may be considered, subject to policy provisions. Additional information has been added to the Submitted Class EA on stocking and introductions. This Class EA is designed for the purpose of dealing with most of these situations through screening to identify potential effects and then through an appropriate project evaluation and consultation process. Subjecting all such development to the full provisions of an individual EA is not necessary. Alterations of a stream or river course would not normally be undertaken in a protected area, as the objective is to protect. If a specific project were proposed, beyond the routine aspects of erosion control projects for example, the screening process would be an appropriate vehicle to assess the scope and scale of potential effects. Through MNR s experience, a few additional projects should also be listed. The Submitted Class EA will include a list of Category D projects, including those noted above, as follows: Large scale facilities (e.g., hotel/lodge/resort and conference centres) not intended to meet the objectives of the provincial park or conservation reserve. Stocking of fish species not present in Ontario (exotic) (i.e., other than native or 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 to individual docks or a series of docks with no services). Alpine ski resorts. 19

23 Category D undertakings should be defined as having the potential for significant and undetermined environmental effects as defined in the approved TOR. (MOE EAAB) See the above discussion regarding the Terms of Reference. 4.2 The Screening Process (page 18) In Figure 4 and on pages 20 and 21, reviews that relate to mineral exploration or development should be done jointly by MNR and MNDM staff. (MNDM) MNDM will be consulted for advice and input where appropriate, as are other ministries and agencies. The reference to duration (first bullet, page 20) is an oversimplification. Most large projects which would be classified according to Appendix 2 as development projects other than operations or resource management would have long term effects which extend beyond construction. (MOE ER) Duration has been removed in this context as the intent of this comment is addressed with respect to monitoring in Section 5.3 and guidance in Appendix 5. Table 4.1: Screening Criteria Suggest that the overall need for the proposed project/activity to occur and the availability of alternatives or alternative methods should be added as screening criteria under general considerations. (EAR) 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 has not been the case, alternatives to the project will be considered in Category B and C evaluations. In addition, alternative methods for carrying out the project will also be included in project evaluations for Category B and C projects, as described in Section 5 of the Submitted Class EA. 20

24 Significant woodlands and significant valley lands are not specifically identified in the screening criteria. These are important in the context of Section 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). (MMAH) The proponent is required to identify applicable legislation and required approvals for a project in the screening (Section 4.2, Step 1), and in a Category B or C project evaluation (Sections 5.1, 5.2). Appendix 7 makes it clear that the Provincial Policy Statement must be complied with. The terms used in the Provincial Policy Statement to identify significant areas were developed by MNR and others to assist in meeting the planning requirements of municipalities in developing Official Plans and approvals under the Planning Act. These terms are not commonly applied to features in provincial parks and conservation reserves, however the Policy Statement s requirements will be met or exceeded through MNR s planning system, and through this Class EA. For example, in park management plans, areas are zoned according to their significance. Natural Environment includes a criterion relating to species at risk, as defined in Appendix 1. The PPS is designed to protect significant portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species, which are themselves defined terms. What is the relationship between these various definitions? (MMAH) 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 will ensure compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement. Note that potential for serious negative effects on species at risk is one of the criteria that may lead to assignment of a project to Category D (see Table 4.2). In the Land Use and Resource Management Considerations category, impacts on existing land uses are not identified as a criterion. These impacts may be important in certain site-specific situations. The relationship between general permitted uses in Ontario s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, or other land use strategies, are also not identified. (MMAH) Potential effects on existing land uses would be identified under a number of the screening criteria, including effects on air quality, water quality or quantity, traffic patterns, noise, views and aesthetics, effects on uses, persons or property outside the park or reserve, and displacement of people, businesses, institutions or public facilities. 21

25 Social, Cultural and Economic Considerations includes a cultural heritage and landscape features criterion. Does this include significant archaeological resources, significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes? The PPS defines each of these latter terms, which are important from a conservation perspective. (MMAH) Cultural heritage and landscape features is intended to encompass significant archaeological resources, significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Identification of an effect under this criterion will lead to steps specified in the Class EA that will ensure that the Provincial Policy Statement is complied with. The requirement to have regard to the PPS, which appears elsewhere in the Draft Class EA, could also be included as a screening criterion. (MMAH) Proponents may be required to meet several legislative and policy requirements such as the PPS and others identified in Appendix 7. The screening table is intended to identify potential environmental effects rather than legislative and policy requirements. Agricultural and rural issues may be a factor when considering a new or expanded park or reserve. These should be considered under the Land Use, Cultural and Economic Considerations. The Provincial Policy Statement states that agriculture is to be protected. (OMAF) Displacement of agricultural land would be encompassed by the criterion: may affect or commit a significant amount of a non-renewable resource. This has been clarified in the Submitted Class EA. Other rural issues would be addressed by the Social, Cultural and Economic Considerations criteria. Part of the screening criteria should be to include a statement in the (social, cultural and economic considerations) "affects tourism values of a licensed resource-based tourism operator". This is certainly an impact consideration, when reviewing any new project proposals under this EA. (MTCR RBT) This type of business is included under the criteria local business. In fact, tourism values are a consideration in several criteria in Table