ASSESSMENT Lecture 15: CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT GROUP APPROVAL • Ontario has a unique group approval EA process for a group rather than individual projects. • Small projects with similar and predicable impacts. • Consider a reasonable and efficient approach to relieve the burden. • 90% of EA was Class EA in 2000. Rationale of Ontario Class EA • avoid full burden of “universal requirement” • small projects are carried out routinely and impacts are predicable and easily mitigated • Federal EAA avoided universal requirement Class EA Dilemma • How to ensure projects with major potential losses to the environment are investigated? • Major events can precipitate from small origins in a complex system. US Federal EA Process • Lead federal agency (designated) to implement steps in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and conduct preliminary environmental analysis • Is there a need for an EIS? • Vast majority of cases (40,000-50,000), 99% projects were found to be “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI). Canadian CEAA • a self-directed assessment in which responsible authority determines for a project whether EA is required. • If EA is required, (a) screening study; or (b) comprehensive study • Federal Government have adopted part of the Ontario process termed class screening. • Public participation in screening is now widespread to avoid court challenge. Class EA in Ontario EAA • Section 13 – A person can apply to minister to approve a class EA with respect to a class of undertaking. • Section 13.2 – A TOR is first required and contents are described in 14.2. • Section 14(4) – Cabinet can expand on requirement of Class EA. • Section 15(1) – Section 5 (applications for approval) does not apply with respect to a proponent who proceeds with an undertaking in accordance with an approved class environmental assessment. • Section 16(1) – “Bump up” can be triggered by written request from affected or interested party and ordered by the Minister. • Section 16(3) – Minister can impose conditions on approving the Class EA. • Section 16(4) – When making the “bump up” decision, Minister takes into account (a) purpose of the act; (b) factors suggesting the undertaking is different from others in its class; (c) significance of the factors; (d) reasons given by requestor. Class EA in Ontario EAA • Section 16(6) – Minister can also refer bump up request to a mediator. • Section 17(2) – It includes “grandfathering” all existing EA Class documents approved before Bill 76. Full EA Class EA Rationale for project is Rationale only for the class, needed. not individual projects Alternatives to and No such requirements alternative methods of the undertaking Impact prediction is needed Impact prediction less rigorous in ESR Impact mitigation is needed Impact mitigation is assumed to be possible and effective Evaluation of alternatives Only evaluation in Class An approval process A planning process Characteristics of Class EA projects • Recurring: frequently done and replicable. • Similar in nature – same scale and type of impacts. • Limited in scale. • Minor and generally predictable effects. • Responsive to mitigating measures such as replanting and stream stablilization. Class EA Process • It is assumed that the environment would be no worse off. • The class process has two steps: (1) parent document and (2) Class Environment Study Report for each project (ESR) if required. Class EA Process Parent Document • conditions that if discovered would “bump up” project to full EA; • how affected parties are to be informed and able to participate in planning; • required contents for class EA for each project Class EA Screening Process Contents of ESR • The problem and the purpose of project. • The decisions taken throughout the process and the rationale for those decisions. • Involvement of review agencies and public. • Environmental considerations as similar impacts are assumed. • Mitigating measures to minimize negative effects and monitoring process to be carried out. Major Differences Between Full and Class EA
• Full EA is a yes/no decision.
• Only decision in Class EA (ESR) is the alternative. • Only way to decide yes/no in Class EA is to have “bump-up”, otherwise “approve.” Limitations of Class EA • Rationale not needed once approved • Limited prediction of Impacts • Limited evaluation of benefits and dis- benefits • Limited public input Public Involvement • during evaluation and identification of alternative solutions through public consultation (not at the “need” stage); • through invitation for those who express an interest and are directly affected by the project; • public comment period of 30 days for ESR. Observation of Class EA • public consultation agenda not properly managed; • inadequate consultation by municipalities or MTO; • mobility of population and surprise of ESR Problems of Class EA • contains no explicit description of types of projects suitable for Class EA; • inconsistency between Class EA’s; • delay caused by bump-up request period • criteria for evaluating a bump-up request is not clear. Benefits of the Class EA • limits level of investigation; • reduces lead times and costs; • tailors level of effort to extent of impacts received; • tailors level of effort to public concern Cumulative Effects Assessment • Serious environmental impacts can be resulted from numerous small projects in a cumulative manner. Mitigation and Monitoring • Mitigation is included as an incentive to improve EA outcomes . • No mandatory provisions in EAA requiring monitoring of approved projects.