Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed initial, targeted changes to the standards and guidelines for consultant archaeologists and criteria for evaluating licensed consulting archaeologist (LCA) compliance.

We offer the following comments for your consideration:

Re: Stage 1 Site Visits:

Retain the option for site visits to be completed during Stage 1 of an Archaeological Assessment; make clear that this is an option that can support the work and not an expectation for all assessments.

Re: Limited Small-Scale Project Areas (LSSPA):

Exemptions from assessment of the entirety of a property are important to both rural contexts which can have large land areas (e.g. rural and agricultural properties) and to urban areas where there may be natural heritage features where no development impacts are anticipated.

We request the province consider the following:
1. Rationalize the land areas that could benefit from this policy to more common rural land use sizes, for example, adjust the %-of-lot or minimum unassessed area criteria so that lots that as small as 4000 square metres (m2) (~1 acre) or 6000 m2 (1.5 acres) could benefit from limited small scale assessments; increase the %-of-lot criteria to provide greater flexibility eg up to 50% of the lot.

2. Consider a role for Archaeological Management Plans to define local contexts / criteria for establishing limited small-scale project areas.

3. Clarify expectations for lands with potential that are outside of the LSSPA, if:
a. There is no potential in the LSSPA that would trigger a Stage 1 assessment; or
b. The Stage 1 assessment of the entire property confirms there is potential, but it is outside of the project area.
c. Application to consents (severed and retained lots)

4. For projects that do not qualify as LSSPA, retain the option of zoning/agreements or title transfers to address areas that have potential for cultural heritage resources that have not yet been assessed, and add the ability for other entities, such as conservation land trusts, to be recipients of lands.
Requiring transfers of title in all cases would:
a. Increase the costs of surveying and other associated legal costs
b. Increase land stewardship costs for public bodies, with limited public use benefit for the lands if they may not be altered without further assessment being completed (presumably, at the public body’s cost)
c. Potentially complicate negotiations regarding such lands as ‘parkland’
d. Increase the cost of completing archaeological assessments, if public bodies are unwilling to accept them and there is no alternative for the landowner / developer.
Adding land trusts as a potential recipient would provide opportunities to align land ownership and land stewardship mandates and budgets that would relieve municipalities of adding stewardship of lands with unassessed archaeological potential to their levy burden.
Retaining zoning / agreements / other instruments as alternatives to transfer of title would continue to support the land use regulation functions that are the foundation of Ontario’s policy-based planning system.

re: Ministry Availability for Engagement:
We recommend Ministry staff remain available for assistance and technical guidance as needed. Planning staff have previously participated in calls with ministry staff and archaeologists to chart an appropriate path forward to address settings that don’t fit well within standards and guidelines scenarios; these discussions have resulted in archaeological reports being ready for acceptance without revisions, and planning applications to proceed without unnecessary delay.

Re: Evaluating LCA Compliance:
• We encourage the province to continue to consult with industry professionals to advance the appropriate regulation of licensed consultant archaeologists and to support the quality of archaeological investigations where they are required in areas of archaeological potential.
• Requiring indigenous engagement in archaeological investigations to earlier in the process could increase the visibility of compliance problems. Further, whether or not engagement is required, expediting the provincial review/acceptance of Stage 1 and 2 assessments into the register where they are accompanied by documented engagement with first nations in whose territory the project is located could increase indigenous engagement and reduce review / acceptance times for proponents.
• We encourage continued engagement with indigenous communities regarding proposed changes that may affect the conservation of cultural heritage resources, including potential resources to support indigenous review capacity and support overall process timelines.