Re: Region of Waterloo…

Re: Region of Waterloo comments on “New regulation to focus municipal environmental assessment requirements” ERO 019-7891

In response to the MECP proposal to revoke the Municipal Class EA and make a streamlined environmental assessment regulation for more complex municipal infrastructure projects and archaeological assessment requirements for other projects, to help deliver critical public works faster to support housing for Ontario’s rapidly growing population, the Region of Waterloo is pleased to have the opportunity to provide comments from the perspective of water and wastewater services.

We understand that only a subset of currently categorized Schedule C projects will screen into the new streamlined EA process, referred to as the Municipal Project Assessment Process (MPAP), and that most Schedule B projects, as well as some Schedule C projects, will follow the newly proposed Archaeological Assessment (AA) Process.

The Region supports the effort to streamline the EA process to focus public consultation on the projects with the largest potential impacts, and to proceed with other infrastructure projects in accordance with applicable provincial and federal legislation and meet applicable permitting and approval requirements.

To support consistent, defendable, and streamlined delivery of projects, we offer the following feedback and recommendations:

1. Guidance Documentation

The proposed process requires that the majority of the work supporting the streamlined EA process, referred to as MPAP, and the Archaeological Assessment (AA) Process be completed before initiating the time-limited process. While this may offer a more streamlined and concise engagement timeframe, at this time, the proposal documents provide limited information on which studies to conduct, stakeholder pre-consultation, and the process for alternative identification and evaluation.

With much of this work happening before the official time-limited consultation period and without clear guidance, this may negatively impact community trust, transparency, and accountability. Each municipality will have to establish its own process or make project-by-project decisions on the necessary studies and pre-consultation requirements for all infrastructure projects, otherwise leading to discrepancies in the level of rigour for various projects across municipalities and within the same municipality. The uncertainty of this ‘preliminary work’ prior to the time-limited MPAP process may unintentionally lengthen the timeframe for infrastructure implementation.

• We recommend that a guidance document, similar to the current one generated by Municipal Engineers Association, be developed and available to at the time the proposed regulation comes into effect to support municipalities in identifying suitable studies based on related legislation, processes for generating and evaluating alternatives, and consultation to ensure consistency and a smooth execution of the AA process and MPAP and implementation of municipal infrastructure.

• To support the development of this guidance document and further refine the proposed regulation, we also recommend that the province establish a group of industry experts and stakeholders, involving the Municipal Engineers Association, to assist with the full vetting of the proposed MPAP.

2. Master Planning

The proposed regulation does not address or provide guidance on the role of master plans for municipal infrastructure. Master planning is an important process that has the benefit of taking a holistic, long-range view of infrastructure requirements within the context of community planning. It helps identify and define projects within a systematic planning framework and provides justification and support for capital planning and budget processes.

The current regulation under the EA Act provides a process for projects identified and evaluated in a Master Plan to be pre-approved for implementation. That is, Master Plans completed following Approach #2 fulfill the requirements of Schedule B projects, and Master Plans completed following Approach #3 fulfill the requirements of Schedule B and C projects, allowing them to proceed to implementation.

• It is recommended that this regulation and/or supporting documents provide direction on the role of master planning and how it relates to the proposed changes to the EA Act.

• Further, to align with the intent of streamlining the delivery of infrastructure to support housing, we recommend that the regulation include an option or pathway for master plans to fulfill the requirements of the AA process and MPAP for identified projects, provided they are conducted in a certain level of detail consistent with the new AA process and MPAP requirements.

3. Project thresholds for MPAP

It is our understanding that the proposed changes to the MPAP project thresholds for water and wastewater treatment facilities include:
• all new treatment plants greater than 100,000 litres per day, and
• expansions greater than 50% of rated capacity or more than 2,275,000 litres per day, or those that bring the facilities over 100,000 litres per day.

The rationale for the fixed volumetric increase of more than 2,275,000 litres per day was unclear. It would likely screen in most mid-sized and larger treatment facilities before the 50% threshold is met, and the larger the facility, the more marginal this amount would be. In many cases, for larger facilities, this fixed volumetric threshold doesn’t necessarily reflect the impact on the public or the environment. Other regulatory approval processes would ensure that the environmental impact is managed, such as completing receiving water impact assessments for ECA amendments that seek to increase the amount of treated effluent discharged. Therefore, this volumetric threshold appears to be counter to the intent of streamlining the EA process by screening in projects that may not necessarily warrant the MPAP.

• We recommend that the threshold for expansions of water and wastewater treatment facilities reflect only an increase of greater than 50% of the rated capacity, and that the 2,275,000 litres per day threshold be removed.

On behalf of the Region of Waterloo, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the province’s proposal to streamline environmental assessment requirements. Thank you for considering these comments, and we look forward to continued collaboration to balance efficiencies while maintaining effective and consistent processes for delivering municipal infrastructure to the communities we serve.