2015-09-06

CVL300
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Presentation 7
Environmental Assessment Acts

Ontario Environmental Assessment Act

• Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990,

CHAPTER E.18
• 1997, it was revised to Environmental
Assessment and Consultations Improvement
Act.
• Consolidation Period: From October 25, 2010
to the e-Laws currency date.
• Last amendment: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 7, s. 1.
• Only review key elements.

1
 2015-09-06

Purpose of Ontario EAA

• Betterment of the people of the whole or

any part of Ontario by providing for
protection, conservation, and wise
management of the environment.
• Protection and conservation ⇨ no use.
• Wise management ⇨ use
• So???

Overview of Ontario EAA

• Comprehensive and universal for only

large scale public sector projects.
• Only the Minister can designate a private
sector project (commercial or business) to
be considered in the EA.
• Class EA was built into the act instead of
“universal requirement”.

2
 2015-09-06

Overview of Ontario EAA (cont’d)

• A major planning process which describes
the undertaking, predicts impact, evaluate
alternatives, and consults public and
stakeholders.
• Projects not covered include private
agriculture, private forestry, and private
fishery.
• Two new parts: Director in charge and
Class EA.
• Minister and cabinet can exempt EA.

Definition of the “Environment”

• physical/natural environment.
• human and man-made environment.
• all potential additions/changes to the
environment.
• Scoping is needed ⇨ Terms of Reference

3
 2015-09-06

Undertakings

• Any enterprise or activity or proposal.

• Physical projects, any plans or programs.

Part II of EAA

• APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL

• MINISTRY REVIEW
• DECISIONS ON THE APPLICATION
• OTHERS

4
 2015-09-06

Terms of Reference (TOR)

• How to identify the environment to be
affected?
• Which impacts will be assessed?
• To what depth they are examined?
• How alternatives will be established or
assessed?
• How alternatives and their impacts will be
evaluated?
• How “need” is addressed?

Terms of Reference (Cont’d)

• TOR limits the study findings.
• TOR is prepared by the proponent.
• No requirement to be guided by
stakeholders

5
 2015-09-06

EA Document
• “Rationale” of the undertaking.
• Alternative methods of carrying the undertaking.
• Alternatives to the undertaking.
• Description of the environment that will be
affected.
• Evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages
to the environment of the undertaking,
alternatives to the undertaking, and alternative
methods.
• Description of consultation and results.

EA Process
• Proponent submits EA to the Ministry.
• Proponent gives public notice EA has been
submitted
• Ministry prepares a review of EA
• Director may find the EA deficient but review
must be completed within 14 days before the
deadline to complete the review.
• Director notifies the proponent and the public
whether EA is rejected or the review is
completed.
• Request for hearing

6
 2015-09-06

EA Process (cont’d)
• Minister has broad discretion to approve
project without hearing.
• The new EA process is deadline driven.

Mediation
• Minister can appoint mediators for the
TOR and the EA itself.
• Minister identifies parties to the mediation,
matters in dispute for mediation, and
invites them to participate in mediation.

7
 2015-09-06

Class Environmental Assessment

• For a group (class) of small projects where
impacts are limited and expected.
• Cumulative impacts of many small
projects.

Full EA Process

One project TOR Full EA Hearing Decision

(Option)

Class EA Process; Initial Assessment

Class EA TOR Full EA Hearing Decision to

Process (option) Approve
Document Class EA
document

After Class EA Document Approved All projects following Class EA document

Class EA: Projects Assumed acceptable impacts

Many projects No new TOR ESR No hearing Mitigation

In the class For each (limited) Bump up
request

8
 2015-09-06

Comparison of Full EA and Class E

Full EA Class EA

Rationale for project needed Rationale for all classes

Alternatives to and alternative Alternatives to and alternative

methods of undertaking methods of class
Impact prediction required Env. Study Report standards less
rigors
Impact mitigation required Assume to be effective for class

Evaluation of alternatives Only evaluate class EA document and

no alternatives
Design may reduce impacts Impacts cannot be fixed by design

Approval of a project Automatically approved if class EA

process is followed.
Yes or no decision Administrative approval

TOR required No TOR needed

Part II-2 of the Act

• Deals specifically with municipal waste
disposal.
• Municipal waste disposal requires EA even
the site is outside the municipal boundary.

9
 2015-09-06

Environmental Assessment Board

• Minister can direct the board to conduct
hearing and what should be heard.

Final Comments on Ontario EAA

• EA Act is still only means of assessing
impacts of a major public project before
proceeding
• But cyclical “battle” over control of EA
process
• Ultimately the EA process must be
transformed in order to achieve
sustainable development.

10
 2015-09-06

Evolution of Canada EA
• Canadian Environmental Assessment and
Review Process (EARP).
• After the incidents in Rafferty-Alamda
Case and the Oldman River Dam Case,
federal agencies thought it was imperative
to draft a law to replace the EARP and
force departments who proposed projects
to comply with EA recommendations.

Rafferty-Alameda Dam
• A simple dam construction project at Souris
River in South Saskatchewan.
• Major environmental interest is the protection of
tree communities, rare plants, bird species in
river bottomlands.
• In 1991, a draft EIS has been prepared by the
Souris Basin Development Agency
• Saskatchewan MOE found the draft EIS to be
insufficient.
• Federal license would be needed under the
International River Improvement Act

11
 2015-09-06

Rafferty-Alameda Dam (cont’d)

• In 1988, Saskatchewan approved the project
and immediate construction started without
federal license.
• CWF sued federal government and the court
ruled EARP bound the federal government and
revoked the license and order Environment
Minister to comply with the EARP before issuing
another license.
• The Supreme Court in 1992 upheld EARP was a
law of general application

Old Man River Dam

• Another critical dam project in Alberta.
• A panel was appointed in 1990 under the
EARP process.
• Peigan Nation Band brought the problem
to the federal court in 1990.
• An EA was done after the dam was
halfway constructed.

12
 2015-09-06

Federal EA Process
• Both dam constructions demonstrate
federal environmental responsibilities
resulting in the establishment of CEAA.
• Under the CEAA (1992), federal
departments cannot issue federal licenses
until federal EA process has been
completed.

CEAA 1992
• Defines the purpose, process and
contents.
• Law list regulations.
• Inclusion list regulations.
• Comprehensive Study list regulations.
• Exclusion list regulations.

13
 2015-09-06

Project

Comprehensi Environmental Exclusion list

ve Study List Screening No EA
Full EA Study

Full EA No EA
required required

CEAA 1992
Review Panel
appointed

• Environment is defined to be biological and physical

components of the Earth.
• Environmental effect (impact).
• Binding on Federal and Provincial Governments

The Purpose of CEAA

• Environmental effects of projects receive
careful consideration.
• Encourage responsible authorities to take
action that promotes sustainable
development by using CEAA
• No adverse impacts of project on federal
lands.
• Ensure there is an opportunity for public
participation in process.

14
 2015-09-06

Projects to be assessed (trigger an EA)

• A federal agency proposes a project or
providing funding.
• Federal agency sells, leases, or transfer
control or administration of federal lands
for a project.
• A federal agency provides a license,
permit or approval.
• EA is done as early as practicable.

Project Classifications

• “Exclusion list”
• “Inclusion list”
• “Comprehensive study list”

15
 2015-09-06

Canada EA Process
• “screening” or comprehensive study and
report.
• mediation or assessment by a review
panel.
• design and implementation of a follow-up
program.

Screening or Comprehensive Study

• Environmental effects of project.
• Significance of the effects.
• Comments from public.
• Measures technically and economically
feasible and would mitigate any significant
adverse impact of the project.
• Other matter relevant to EA that the
Minister may require.

16
 2015-09-06

Public Participation
• Public registry of screening documents.
• Public can scrutinize the EA document.

Cross border projects

• A federal agency proposes a project in
one province and the effect will occur in
another province.
• A federal agency’s project is not in
Canada or on federal lands.
• For foreign projects receiving federal
funding

17
 2015-09-06

Panel review
• significant environmental effects will occur;
• uncertain whether environmental effect will
occur
• where public concern warrants.
• Minister can refer a project to a panel at
any time.

CEAA 2012
• Make the process more timely and
predicable.
• Reducing duplication.
• Strengthening environmental protection.
• Enhance consultations with Aboriginal
peoples.

18
 2015-09-06

Changes
• Only designated projects (e.g. nuclear,
energy, and other projects) will go through
EA process.
• Screening, standard EA, review panels.
• Proponent submits a screening report and
CEA Agency reviews based on possibility
that carrying out the project may cause
adverse environmental effects, comments
by the public, and the results of previous
regional studies.

Changes
• If an EA is required, the authority will
assess based on a consideration of 10
factors including the environmental effects
of the project, and the cumulative effects
likely to results, the significance of those
effects, mitigation measures, and
alternative means of carrying out the
designated project, as well as community
knowledge and Aboriginal traditional
knowledge.

19
 2015-09-06

Changes
• A project may be referred to a review panel if the
Minister decides so.
• Provincial EA can be a potential substitute
process if it meets the requirement of CEAA
2012.
• Standard EA 12 months; 24 months for panel
reviews; 15 months for National Energy Board
hearings plus 3 months for Governor in Council
to make an order.
• Enforceable EA decision statements.
• Follow-up programs after all EA.

20