I am writing with some…

I am writing with some significant concerns about this proposal to revoke the Municipal Class EA and make a streamlined EA regulation for municipal infrastructure for higher-risk projects (ERO 019-7891). This proposal essentially removes the legislative trigger for archaeological assessment in advance of municipal road and bridge projects, as well as many water and wastewater projects.

Last year when the MECP ran through an evaluation process regarding MCEA requirements for infrastructure projects (ERO 019-6693), comments came in regarding reduced protections for matters important to Indigenous people (e.g. archaeology, Duty to Consult). The MECP response only noted that municipalities, as responsible levels of government with professional staff, are accountable to residents and those that may be impacted by their projects. Whether or not a project is subject to an EA process, it is expected that municipalities undertake appropriate steps to engage their local communities on projects that may be of interest to them, and make environmentally responsible decisions.

Should the MCEA process be revoked, the lack of a formalized process and provincial oversight will result in a piecemeal approach by municipalities to develop their own processes for: 1) identifying whether an archaeological assessment is required, and 2) to ensure any given undertaking does not impact known archaeological resources. I have concerns that without sufficient, legislatively-driven planning processes in place, that known and previously undocumented archaeological resources and burials will be at risk of destruction. This proposed regulation will download all responsibility onto municipalities to develop systems to ensure the protection of cultural heritage within their jurisdiction, without the backing of a regulatory requirement to do so.

When approached from a planning perspective, archaeological assessments are a useful tool for making planning decisions about project design, with the goal of protecting or limiting impacts to known archaeological sites of heritage value. This is especially true when completed in the early stages of a project. But it is noted that many municipalities do not have the capacity or the in-house knowledge regarding the locations of known sites and burials within their jurisdictions. Furthermore, not all municipalities have access to site data, and in even cases where data agreements are in place, there are known issues with the accuracy of the provincially-held site data, including site locations, which raises further concerns. While some municipalities have archaeological planning tools such as Archaeological Management Plans, they are not all updated with sufficient frequency, and, are not always perfect. And they are certainly not intended to replace archaeological assessments undertaken for municipal infrastructure projects.

My major concern is that without a formalized process or up-to-date information, particularly in a time of transition, there is a high risk that known and previously undocumented archaeological resources and burials have the potential to be impacted by municipal projects that are no longer under the MCEA umbrella. This is also true for new projects that will no longer have a regulatory requirement for archaeological assessment, such as road construction, and that could result in impacts to both known and previously undocumented sites and burials.

Should this regulation be passed, there will be significant risks to archaeological resources and burials, and significant risks to project timelines should archaeological sites and burials be encountered during the construction phase of a project.

I hope this is taken into consideration.