The Municipal Class EA, dated June 2000, was approved with conditions by Order of Cabinet on October 4, 2003. Condition #4 requires that a Municipal Class EA Monitoring Program be further defined and implemented. The Municipal Class EA Monitoring Program requires the preparation of an Annual Monitoring Report.

In February, 2003, questionnaires were circulated to the Proponent Municipalities, Technical Agencies and other Key Stakeholders identified in the Monitoring Program. The Ministry of the Environment was also asked to provide a summary of the Notices of Completions and Part II Order requests which they had received.

The responses from Proponent Municipalities to the questionnaire indicated that:

1. Only the largest municipalities carry out many Schedule B or C projects each year. Not all municipalities are filing a Notice of Study Commencement with the Regional EA Coordinator at MOE’s Regional Offices. Municipalities are filing Notices of Completion.

2. Most municipalities feel that the project schedules are appropriate.

3. Some municipalities sometimes have difficulty determining the appropriate schedule but once it is determined the choice is not challenged.

4. Interpretation of project schedules is consistent.

5. Proponents are recommending the following amendments fo the Class EA;

i) reference to Local Improvement Act; ii) include Wastewater Management Projects in Schedule A; iii) include shoreline works such as off shore breakwaters, shore connected breakwater, groynes and sea walls; iv) shift traffic calming to Schedule A; v) increase dollar limits with inflation; vi) increase dollar limits for intersection improvement so that it does not go to a Schedule C at $1.5 million; and vii) reclassify or redefine road closure.

6. The Municipal Class EA is easy to follow.

7. The Municipal Class EA provides for the appropriate level of documentation.

8. Although some proponents have, at times, been requested for additional information, generally stakeholders are satisfied with the level of documentation.

9. Technical agencies generally participate in a timely manner.

10. Only some proponents have received a Part II Order request in the past year. MOE’s review of Part II Order requests has been timely in some cases but in others there have been significant delays with no apparent reason for the delay.

11. Proponents are satisfied that Class EA process continues to be effective.

12. The “Integrated Approach” is not commonly used.

13. Administration costs are generally 5-10% of total budget. Schedule A projects represent 25-95% of the total budget. A single large Schedule B or C project can shift this percentage dramatically for a given year especially in a small municipality.

The responses from government review agencies indicate that:;

1) Agencies that responded participated in projects last year.

2) Several respondents participated in more than 50 Schedule B or C projects. Master Plans are becoming more common.

3) There are no concerns with the selection of the proper schedule. MOE is not satisfied with their opportunities for input but other agencies are generally satisfied.

4) Agencies almost never request a Part II Order.

5) Integrated Approach is not common.

6) Need for more training. Greater focus addressing Agency comments and a follow up process. Agricultural resources need to be identified up front.

7) Compliance with EA commitments should be addressed with follow up questions.

Questionnaires were circulated to all key stakeholders, however no responses were received.

A summary of the Notices of Completion for Schedule B and C projects is found in Appendix D. This summary shows that MOE received approximately 59 Notices of Completion of Schedule B projects and 36 Notices of Completion of Schedule C projects and 4 notices related to the integrated approach. In 2002, 51 difference municipalities submitted Notices of Completion, an increase from 37 municipalities in 2001.

A summary of the Part II Order Requests which were dealt with by MOE in 2001 is found in Appendix E. This summary shows that of the 11 requests received, 4 related to Schedule B projects and 7 related to Schedule C projects. All 11 requests were denied and no orders were issued in 2002.

The available information supports the conclusion that the Municipal Class EA is successful, however, implementing the following recommendations would improve the process.

To continue as a successful process, the Municipal Class EA should be amended when appropriate to address the needs of the proponents and stakeholders. The following amendments will be considered in the future.