CVL300

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND IMPACT

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
Rationale for project is
needed.
Alternatives to and
alternative methods of the
undertaking
Impact prediction is needed
Impact mitigation is needed
Evaluation of alternatives
An approval process
Class EA
Rationale only for the class,
not individual projects
No such requirements
Impact prediction less
rigorous in ESR
Impact mitigation is assumed
to be possible and effective
Only evaluation in Class
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.