• need to clarify definition and triggers
  • review effectiveness given that few undertakings are bumped-up
  • time, cost, efficiency associated with bump-up requests
  • general recognition and acceptance of need for an appeal mechanism. Bump-up provision provides this, however, proponent’s accountability and public’s responsibilities need to be made clearer in the document. Bump-up currently refers to changing the project status to an individual EA.
  • the EA Act provides an appeal mechanism to change the status of a project whereby a person / party may request an order that Part II of the EA Act apply (Part II addresses individual EAs). This is what is known as a Part II Order which replaces the former “bump-up” provision.
  • clarify what a Part II Order may result in, specifically regarding the status of the project and type of review
  • clarify the responsibilities of the proponent and the public
  • while the ability to charge an administration fee to submit a request for a Part II Order was considered, it was concluded not to do so.

Integrated Approach


  • Master Planning






  • Co-ordination with the Planning Act













  • Proponency


  • while many proponents have been successfully carrying out Master Plans, others have requested additional direction
  • in addition, this section should be updated to reflect the experience gained
  • while some proponents have been successfully doing this, others have requested clarification
  • general desire to encourage integration of planning under EA Act and Planning Act and to provide incentives for good planning under both








  • need to clarify private sector proponency


  • expand discussion in appropriate sections and provide supplementary explanatory information in an appendix. See Section A.2.7 and Appendix 4


  • outline requirements which if met by a project or Master Plan which also come into effect or approval under the Planning Act, then they would be exempt from further examination under the Municipal Class EA
  • the appeal provision would therefore become an appeal to the OMB rather than a request for a Part II Order under the EA Act
  • the foregoing approach replaces the use of the definition “approved development plan” which has therefore been deleted
  • see Section A.2.9
  • see definition of “proponent” in the Glossary


  • need to review triggers and schedules
  • generally the schedules for both Class EAs are working well, however, they need to be reviewed for general updating
  • Schedule A (pre-approved activities) -necessary to carry out maintenance / operating / emergency activities
  • Schedules B and C - may overlap due to varying levels of complexity
  • therefore, are the triggers and schedules appropriate?
  • is $ trigger for roads schedules appropriate?
  • should the format for describing schedules be the same for roads, and water and wastewater?
  • Triggers
  • strengthen and highlight discussion of level of complexity
  • clarify the potential for overlap between B and C projects due to varying levels of complexity
  • Schedules
  • given municipal and practitioner familiarity from the many years of using the existing approach, it is proposed to leave schedules in their current format and update
  • $ trigger for road projects is a means of identifying project scale and scope, and should be maintained
  • the $ triggers, however, have been reviewed for their appropriateness


TABLE A.1 (cont’d)




Level of Effort / Project Significance

  • need to “scope” issues, “scope” alternatives and tailor the level of effort to meet a project’s specific needs
  • “scoping” does occur in practice although there are no formal “scoping” mechanisms in the Class EAs other than the process to determine schedules
  • the existing Class EAs do refer to scoping, varying levels of effort to reflect project environmental needs, etc.
  • highlight existing references
  • include a general discussion of level of complexity/sensitivity in process section and in the introduction to the schedules (see Section A.2.1.1 and Appendix 1 respectively)
  • highlight that determination of level of complexity and ongoing assessment is an inherent function of the management of a project rather than include specific scoping criteria

Co-ordination with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)

  • two main issues:
  • education re: CEAA
  • Coordination with CEAA
  • goes beyond the scope of the Class EA to provide detailed guidance re: CEAA requirements
  • however, document can note the need to address CEAA requirements and main considerations
  • ideally, federal and provincial EA requirements should be integrated in one document
  • provide brief section outlining CEAA requirements and considerations (see Section A.2.11)



  • re: integration – MEA to follow-up with provincial ministries and CEAA separately from current renewal project

Consultation / Mediation

  • update the consultation section to reflect from last 5 years
  • address mediation
  • general recognition that consultation identified in Class EAs is a minimum only and that many proponents go beyond this and tailor a consultation plan / approach to the needs of a specific project
  • the section, however, needs to be updated
  • update section
  • address mediation, alternative dispute resolution
  • include a sample public handout re: Municipal Class EA process (see Appendix 5)

Need for Two Municipal Class EAs (Application of EA Process to Municipal Projects)

  • is it necessary to have two separate Class EAs?
  • given that the Class EA process for Municipal Road Projects, and Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects are the same, it may be appropriate to consolidate the Class EAs
  • consolidate the Class EAs to provide consistency and easy use for all stakeholders


  • monitoring sections need to be reviewed
  • address monitoring re: a) Class EA process / parent document; b) specific projects
  • addressed as follows:
  • Section A.1.5.1 Parent Class EA
  • Section A.2.6    project-specific

Increase Application of the Municipal Class EAs

  • address the opportunities to expand the application of the Municipal Class EAs to other projects, e.g. transit, waste management
  • the ability to add projects is important given the ongoing changes to municipal responsibilities
  • given the time constraints and limited resources for this round of review, it was concluded to identify the process to be followed (including the approvals to be obtained) for the future inclusion of new municipal projects.  The actual inclusion of other projets, however, will be addressed separately from the current renewal project (see Section A.1.5.2).

Relationship to Municipal Act / Other Legislation

  • potential duplication under Municipal Class EAs and other legislation, for example, public notification
  • there are many approvals under various legislation which municipal projects have to obtain
  • the Municipal Class EAs address approval under the EA Act only
  • a detailed explanation of other requirements goes beyond the scope of the Municipal Class EAs
  • include a general comment advising of the need to obtain other approvals and permits, and the desirability of co-ordinating with the EA process (see Section A.2.10)

Clarification of Stakeholder Roles

  • some stakeholders have requested clarification of the role of municipal politicians
  • the role of municipal politicians will vary from municipality to municipality
  • the proponent has to take responsibility for the process
  • clarify proponency at outset of document and with whom ultimate responsibility rests (see definition of “proponency” in the Glossary)