Unlike the Planning Act, or…

Unlike the Planning Act, or the Environmental Assessment Act, the Public Lands Act or a number of other pieces of legislation, there is no section in the PPCRA that says the minister can issue policies (associated procedures implied) under the act. Furthermore, the PPCRA doesn't once mention environmental stewardship, impact assessment, or project evaluation. I think the lack of direct connection between the proposed policy/procedure and the PPCRA is an oversight that should be corrected because without that connection, the power and relevancy of the policy are diminished.

More comments:

Why aren't the screening or evaluation procedure posted here for project that aren't "minor"? In other words, why would you not have already completed 5.2 and post everything together on the ERO? This is a serious downgrade from proposed environmental impact assessment policy. I think the resulting dysfunction of having the Technical Guidelines separate from the Class EA PPCR should give a good perspective on what happens when important connected policy and procedure are in two or more separate documents published in different years.

Has MCM been consulted on how the Technical Guidelines have been incorporated into this new policy? Although this probably wasn't really done properly across the board until the mid 2010s, in the past the Technical Guidelines and Class EA were to be used in tandem. Now it the opportunity to incorporate them into one policy/procedure. Maybe MECP doesn't really want to, due to grey areas in jurisdiction, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't consult MCM directly (i.e., before posting this or other procedural documents on the ERO). If MCM can tell a member of the public that they need to do an archaeological assessment before a new lot is created for a new cottage to be built, then they should be able to provide Ontario Parks with feedback on cultural heritage policies to use during our own project evaluations. Even if they just throw the "Criteria for Evaluating Archaeological Potential" form at us, it would be useful to say their expertise is behind our policy and procedure.

A couple of questions I have regarding archaeological potential and the "minor project' list: How could below-high-water mark dredging be minor when it is extremely likely that the potential for archaeological resources is high? Same for above-high-water=mark grade altering. Another question: some management plans are decades old. If a building set to be demolished is not down yet, it could easily be over 40 years old. I.e., maybe just do the evaluation?

Maybe there is something I don't understand here.. is a project evaluation equivalent to needing public consultation? It's not entirely clear to me. Here is the best possible scenario: the precautionary principle suggests that an evaluation should be completed if there is any uncertainty whatsoever. If the evaluation lands on low risk of negative impacts, then no consultation would be necessary. The policy should be clear that nothing should prevent a planner from undertaking an evaluation if they deem it prudent for environmental or record-keeping purposes.

For 'maintain or repair dam, weir, dike.. .. ", you imply that projects with no in-water work are equivalent to projects that are not part of a waterpower project with the brackets. This isn't true: they are two separate things. For any projects with in-water work, even if there are no archaeological resources, often DFO procedures need to be covered off, too (Think about non-floating docks, for example). If the evaluation is as simple as your template table suggests it is, then some of the minor projects listed here shouldn't be listed as such. Anyway, I recommend a comma and the word "and" ahead of the words currently in brackets (remove the brackets).

Don't forget about the Navigable Waters Act and the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act in 3.3.3. The list in 3.3.3 should include everything possible at the time of the finalization of this policy. No-one is an expert at everything: the list will be a go-to for planners.

Why are species at risk not mentioned anywhere in the "minor" list? Even mowing "grass" is non-minor if there is a risk of hurting a population of a species-at-risk. Most people at the protected area level using the list on a day-to-day basis will just be looking at the "minor" list and not at section 3.3.3. They almost certainly won't take the time to read the legislation before mowing or taking any other "minor" action.

".. if avoids negatively affecting values"?? Maybe just do a project evaluation and get it signed off. They don't take that long. Otherwise, how do you know? Without the evaluation procedure, how does a planner fairly and consistently seek the feedback of expert colleagues such as lands specialists and ecologists (where necessary)? Having said that, I read those words as a euphemism for SARs, but park values include more than just species at risk. As there is in the current Class EA PPCR (though no-one ever uses it), there should be a procedure laid out to make it possible to reach out to other-ministry colleagues at MNRF and MCM (etc.) before and separate from public consultation periods.

It is the park manager's job to apply and implement the existing management plan. But project planning and evaluation is planning work. Anything published at Ontario Parks should not (further) diminish the role of Protected Area Planners in protected area management. Indeed, every effort should be made to highlight their important / necessary mandates. This policy should be more closely linked up-front with Ontario Parks' planners' roles and mandates by mentioning management plans and management planning, at very least in the Introduction, but also in 3.2. If a project that is non-minor has already been consulted on during management planning (e.g., within the last 10 years), then the project should not undergo evaluation (or at least not consultation) again. This could be said upfront instead of just sometimes in the list of minor projects. This would also prevent any possible ambiguity provided by section 4.5, where the necessity for a "major" project to be in a management plan to be able to be implemented isn't mentioned at all.

Another suggested editing comment for 3.2 (first paragraph). "The ministry should apply this policy when considering site alteration projects in a provincial park or conservation reserve and when considering the disposition of Crown lands and resources. The project may be proposed internally or be proposed from external persons, stakeholders, or communities, "

Section 3.5 is mostly mis-named: this is good information, but it is mostly about management plan amendments (which occur after management planning, not during). In the spirit of my earlier comment about the importance of protected area planners, maybe consider merging 3.2 and 3.5.

"Maintain wildlife in captivity"? Are staff trained for that? What's the definition of "captivity"? Are we talking insects and plants? Likely, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (o.reg 668.98) should be listed in 3.3.3 too. Researchers/Biologists must follow the Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines. In short, I don't really see any proposed project for keeping wildlife in captivity as a minor thing.

The only mention of the EBR is to use the criteria for environmental significance during a decision to amend a management plan or not. (Side note (editing), it is not "implementing" a project to amend a plan to incorporate the project into a priority list). Using the definitions of policies and instruments on the environmental registry, and for ease-of-use sake and to avoid any confusion, you should confirm directly that the project evaluation procedures and decisions, by themselves, are not subject to the EBR. (This would be separate to any authorizations associated with the decision, but on that note, why aren't dispositions and authorizations not PPCRA instruments?) This would be true even in the case that there is an external proponent since it is Ontario Parks' responsibility to make the project evaluation decision. This was a source of confusion for several years after the publication of the Class EA PPCR under the EAA.

Somewhere in here it should be made clear that a decision could include not to proceed with a proposed project. Deciding not to do something (on the record, with rationale) is just as important as deciding to do something. With that in mind: 4.5 "The minister may proceed to implement the final project evaluation decision following:..." Also a question here, if the changes to a project (after 5 years of non-implementation) are substantial, are there any accountability requirements to the public (if public consultation occurred)? Is another evaluation process required at that time to determine this, maybe?

Background comment, there should be a formal agreement with MNRF to be able to work with them on direct-communication lists (e.g., local trappers, or other local stakeholders with permits from MNRF that may be affected). Due to various interpretations of FIPPA requirements, this has also been hit-and-miss for many years, even when Ontario Parks was part of MNRF.

"Endeavour to respond" is too vague. This policy needs to be clear. A response may request more time, but a response will occur. In short, this should be a "will respond within" statement. There should be consequences for not responding - list them. 4.4 should also have a procedure or template associated with it listed in 5.2, for province-wide consistency and to remove any sub-conscious bias. If the EBR is applicable to this policy and procedure, then the appeal process should line up (for ease) with the appeal process for the EBR.

Where are project evaluation decisions to be stored? MECP used to keep track of Class EA PPCR Statements of Completion, what's the equivalent for this new policy and process?

If a planner remembered to apply the Technical Guidelines, then the Class EA PPCR was already an excellent procedure. It's only drawbacks were that it didn't account for project scale, and that if a screening or more work was completed (e.g., used the Category B assessment procedure in early stages), it was implied that you couldn't "screen to" a Category A.

The page numbering in this document is all messed up.

Anyway, I've most likely missed things, but I'm sure everything will have been caught when you receive comments from your internal experts: the Ontario Parks planners (I no longer work there). If you don't work with and listen to the staff who will be using the policy up front, you will not be meeting your environmental obligations now or in the future. In addition, this policy cuts out so much information, I believe you have put yourself at risk of not meeting your EBR obligations with respect to this policy, unless you're planning future installments for the rest of the process. Eventually, policy review exercises may show that the policy doesn't work well, but why wait until that stage? Do this correctly right from the start, please.

I hope these comments and suggestions add insight and are helpful.