New regulation to focus municipal environmental assessment requirements

December 2025 proposal update

Ontario is continuing to propose sensible, practical changes that maintain environmental safeguards while reducing delays on municipal infrastructure projects.

Following preliminary consultation in spring 2023 on evaluating Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) requirements for municipal infrastructure projects, and subsequent consultation in February 2024 on a proposed new regulation for municipal infrastructure, the ministry is now seeking input on changes to the previous proposal based on input received during the earlier consultations.

Changes to proposal include: ​

• introduction of a proposed archaeological assessment process for certain listed projects (including certain types of road and road-related infrastructure projects) that would not have other requirements under the EA Act
• a related new proposed project list to designate the projects proposed to be subject to the archaeological assessment process
• changes to the previous proposed project list designating projects proposed to be subject to the streamlined EA process, including adding certain projects by private sector developers, and adjusting certain thresholds that are the basis for a project being subject
• changes to the previous proposed streamlined EA process in terms of details of requirements (e.g., impact assessment, consultation, documentation and notification)
• additional details are being provided on other elements of the proposal including addendum, project review and transition provisions

This approach will help the province eliminate unnecessary burden on lower-impact projects and reduce duplicative requirements to support Ontario’s rapidly growing population.

Introduction of an archaeological assessment process

Currently, under MCEA, proponents of certain projects are required to assess the potential for impact to archaeological resources either as part of the process for assessing impacts to the environment or, for certain other projects, as part of an archaeological screening process which, if completed, results in the project being exempted from the EA Act. 

In the previous proposal, a number of projects were proposed to no longer have any requirements under the Act. In response to input received, we are now proposing that many of these projects be subject to an archaeological assessment process before they can proceed. 

The proposed archaeological assessment process includes a requirement for proponents to notify Indigenous communities and seek their input on the results of the archaeological assessment. There is also the ability for concerns to be raised about adverse impacts to Aboriginal or treaty rights, and for the minister to intervene to address such impacts. For an overview of the proposed process, see the diagram in the attachment to this posting.

For projects subject to the archaeological assessment process, proponents must: 

• obtain a list of potentially interested Indigenous communities from the ministry
• determine whether the project area may have archaeological potential, taking into consideration, among other things, guidance from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MCM) regarding the determination of archaeological potential (e.g., Criteria for Evaluating Archaeological Potential: A Checklist for the Non-Specialist), unless the proponent wishes to proceed directly to retain a licensed archaeologist to undertake an archaeological assessment

Where the proponent determines that the project area does not have potential for archaeological resources, the proponent must: 

• prepare a draft summary report that includes a description of the project and project area, a description of the information relied upon in making the determination that the project area does not have archaeological potential and the reasons for the determination
• provide notice of the draft summary report to Indigenous communities, the Director of the Environmental Assessment Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) and MCM and post the notice on the website
• provide for a minimum of 30 days for review and comment on the draft summary report
• taking into consideration any comments received from Indigenous communities, prepare a final summary report including a summary of comments received, how the concerns were addressed and any commitments made in response to the concerns to mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources
• provide notice of the final summary report to Indigenous communities, MECP, MCM and post a copy of the notice and report on the proponent’s website
• proponents cannot proceed with the project until 15 days after such a notice is provided

Where the proponent determines that the project area may have archaeological potential, or where the proponent has opted to proceed directly to undertaking an archaeological assessment, the proponent must:

• retain a licensed archaeologist who will undertake a Stage 1 and, where necessary, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists 2011, issued by MCM and have the report entered in the Register mentioned in section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act
• prepare a draft summary report including a description of the project and project area, a summary of any Archaeological Assessment Stage 1 and (where applicable) Stage 2 reports, a summary of any comments received, how any concerns have been addressed, any commitments made in response to the concerns and report recommendations to mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources, and copies of any letters received from MCM
• provide notice of the draft summary report to Indigenous communities, the Director of the Environmental Assessment Branch and MCM and post a copy of the notice and report on the proponent’s website
• provide for a minimum of 30 days for review and comment on the draft summary report
• prepare a final summary report, taking into consideration any comments received from Indigenous communities, that includes a summary of comments received, how the concerns were addressed and any commitments made in response to the concerns and report recommendations to mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources
• provide notice of the final report to Indigenous communities, the Director of the Environmental Assessment Branch at MECP, MCM and post a copy of the notice and final report on the proponent’s website
• proponents cannot proceed with the project until 35 days after the notice is provided

Under the proposed process, the minister would have the ability to intervene by making an order under section 17.31 of the Environmental Assessment Act, including an order to impose additional requirements that must be satisfied before the proponent may commence or proceed with the project. Such an order may be made on the minister’s own initiative, or in response to a request made on the grounds that the order may prevent, mitigate or remedy adverse impacts on Aboriginal or Treaty rights (see section 17.31 (7) of the Act).

When implementing the project, proponents must satisfy any commitments made to mitigate impacts on archaeological resources as outlined in their summary report. If changes are required to the project, such that the proponent cannot meet those commitments, they would be required to revise the report and provide rationale for the change. A new notice would be required to be posted on the website and circulated to Indigenous communities, MECP and MCM, and another 15-day waiting period would apply. 

If the location of the project changes such that it would be located on lands that were not assessed in accordance with the process above or a previous archaeological assessment conducted since 2011 and entered in the Register mentioned in section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, the proponent must follow the process above in relation to any lands that were not assessed.

It should be noted that, where previously undocumented archaeological resources are discovered during construction, the proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed consultant archaeologist to carry out further archaeological assessment, in compliance with section 48(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Projects proposed to be subject to the archaeological assessment process

The projects proposed to be subject to this archaeological assessment process are generally those which are subject to the archaeological screening process under MCEA, as well as those which are Schedule B or C projects under MCEA and that are not proposed to be subject to the proposed streamlined EA process. 

These projects would not be subject to the archaeological assessment requirements if the required level of archaeological assessment has been completed for the project area since 2011 and entered in the Register mentioned in section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The required level of archaeological assessment is a Stage 2 archaeological assessment, or a Stage 1 archaeological assessment in which no part of the project area is identified as an area of archaeological potential.  

Table 1: projects proposed to be subject to the archaeological assessment process, in the attachment to this posting, provides a list of projects that are proposed to be subject to the archaeological assessment process.

Proposed refinements to the projects previously proposed to be subject to the streamlined environmental assessment process 

The list of projects previously proposed to be designated as subject to the streamlined EA process has been refined to:

• incorporate proposed changes to project thresholds
• more clearly articulate what the project is that is being designated
• remove certain projects that are addressed in other ways in the project list or other designations under the EA Act (see Table 2 for additional information)  

Through regulation, private sector developers are currently designated as subject to the MCEA for certain road, water and sewage projects that serve residents of a municipality. We previously proposed to remove all requirements for private sector developers. 

We heard from a range of stakeholders that certain projects undertaken by private sector developers should remain subject to the EA Act. As such, we are now proposing that private sector developers be subject to the proposed streamlined EA process for new drinking water treatment systems or plants, and new sewage systems, plants or lagoons.

Table 2: projects proposed to be subject to the streamlined EA process, attached to this posting, provides a list of projects previously proposed to be subject to the streamlined EA process and what is now proposed to be subject, including which designations are proposed to apply to private sector developers.

Proposed changes to the previously proposed streamlined environmental assessment process

We are also proposing some changes to the previous proposal for the streamlined EA process in order to improve transparency and flexibility. Changes in the process steps are noted below. For an overview of the proposed process, see the diagram in the attachment to this posting.

Steps in the proposed streamlined EA process to be undertaken by the proponent:

• contact the director to obtain a list of Indigenous communities that may be interested in the proposed project
• assess the potential impacts on the environment of the proposed project, taking into account measures to mitigate impacts and identify methods to be used to verify the effectiveness of such measures
• prepare a draft report on the project that includes specified information, such as a description of the project, a summary of any background information, a map of the project location and study area, and a description of the environmental conditions and mitigation measures
• distribute a notice of draft report that includes specified information and publish the notice and report on the project website. The notice must be given to adjacent landowners, Indigenous communities on the list, regulatory agencies and any other interested person the proponent identifies. The notice must provide for a minimum of 30 days for comment, however that deadline can be extended by the proponent. This notice marks the beginning of the regulated 120-day timeline (see “time-out” section below – extensions to 120-day time period) 

Note: In the initial proposal, the first notice was referred to as a Notice of Commencement, and the proponent would not have been required to make the draft report available at the time that notice was issued.

• consult with Indigenous communities on the list and others to whom the notice is required to be sent (e.g., government entities, interested persons identified by the proponent) for input on the project
• after the above steps are completed, and before the end of the 120-day process period (or the end of the period as extended), prepare a final report taking into account comments received. The report must include specified information, such as a summary of comments received. Where any comment raises a concern, a written response must be provided at least 30 days prior to publishing the final report. This will provide an opportunity to see how input received on the draft has been addressed and will be reflected, if applicable, in the final report

Note: This step was not included in the process as described in the initial posting.

• give notice of the final report with certain specified content to Indigenous communities on the list and the others who received the notice of the draft and post the final report on the website for information purposes

Note: There is no longer a proposed requirement for a subsequent statement of completion that was in the previous proposal.

Before starting the time-limited regulated process, proponents will be encouraged to undertake pre-consultation to identify issues early and complete any studies that may be required.

“Time Out” (Extension to the 120-day process period) 

If, during this process, the proponent determines that more time is required to address outstanding concerns about a project, they can pause the project assessment process by publishing a notice, extending the 120-day period, to the project website and notifying the director. As initially proposed, this “time out” was limited to a maximum of 30 days. Based on input received, we are now proposing to provide more flexibility with respect to the length of a “time out” that a proponent may need in order to respond to any outstanding issues. The “time out” period may be extended by the proponent for any length of time. 

Minister’s Orders

The Minister’s Order provisions in the Act have not changed since the previous proposal. Requests for a Minister’s Order may be submitted only where an order may prevent, mitigate or remedy an adverse impact of the project on constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights. If such a request is made, the project cannot proceed until the minister has made a decision.

The minister may also issue such an order on their own initiative within 35 days of the notice of final report. If the minister does not act within the 35 days and there are no requests for a Minister’s Order, the project may proceed and must do so in accordance with the final report and any addenda to the report. 

Addendum and Project Review provisions

The process for addenda that was previously proposed has been refined. It is now proposed to include additional documentation and notification requirements.

Should circumstances arise that would prevent the project from proceeding in accordance with the final report and a change to the project is necessary, the proponent would be required to assess the potential impacts of the change and then determine whether the change is significant or not. The regulation would set out what constitutes a change and considerations that the proponent would be required to consider in making the determination about whether a proposed change is significant, including the potential impacts of the change on the environment and any mitigation measures. This is intended to assist with achieving consistency in determinations of significance. 

Where the proponent determines that the change is not significant, the proponent would be required to:

• describe in an addendum to the final project report the change and the assessment performed to determine the significance of the change  
• post the addendum on the project website and send a notice to the director
• wait 15 days before proceeding  

Where the proponent determines that change is significant, the proponent would be required to: 

• draft an addendum to the project report that includes a description of the proposed change, any studies conducted or relied upon to determine potential impacts to the environment and mitigation measures, a summary of the assessment performed to determine the significance, a list of authorizations required to proceed with the change and a summary of any consultations
• post the draft addendum on the project website and give notice to adjacent landowners, Indigenous communities (identified on a list provided by the director), government agencies and the director that the draft is available for review. The notice shall set out the comment period that must be a minimum of 30-days. Notice must include a statement that a request can be made for a Minister’s Order only on the grounds that an order may prevent, mitigate or remedy an impact on constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights
• after considering any comments provided and making any necessary revisions to the addendum, post the final addendum on the project website and provide notice to adjacent landowners, the Indigenous communities, government agencies and the director
• wait 35 days before proceeding 

Project Review 

If the project has not “substantially proceeded” within 10 years of the final notice, the proponent would be required to prepare a report describing the current environmental conditions in comparison to the conditions at the time of the previous final report and any addenda. The review report must identify whether, in light of any changes to the environmental conditions, the proponent is of the opinion that changes may be necessary to the project to mitigate any potential negative impacts and the rationale for that opinion. The report would have to include a description of the proposed changes and any mitigative measures and be posted on the project website. If changes are not required, the proponent would be required to wait 15 days before proceeding. Where a change is necessary the proponent would be required to follow the proposed addendum provisions outlined above (including the required periods related to proceeding with the project).

The regulation is also proposed to specify certain things that would not be considered “substantially proceeding” such as geotechnical work, site preparation and fencing.

Proposed transition provisions 

The proposed regulation would set out transition rules, including providing for the transition of projects for which a MCEA process has been completed or is underway when the proposed regulation takes effect (transition date). 

For projects where a MCEA Schedule B or C process has been completed but the project has not yet been implemented, or is being carried out as of the transition date:

• the proponents must implement the projects in accordance with any Project File Report, Environmental Study Report and addendum prepared under MCEA
• if future changes are required, the addendum provisions set out in the proposed streamlined EA process (outlined above) will apply
• if the proponent has not substantially proceeded with the project within 10-years of the publication of the Project File Report or Environmental Study Report, the project review and addendum provisions in the streamlined EA process (outlined above) would apply 

These provisions would apply to all Schedule B and C projects regardless of whether or not they are a project type that is on the streamlined EA project list. 

For projects where a MCEA process (i.e., archaeological screening, Schedule B, Schedule C or addendum process) is underway but the proponent is not yet authorized to proceed with the project as of the transition date, proponents may:

1. complete the MCEA process that is underway.
2. terminate the MCEA process that is underway and carry out the proposed streamlined EA process or archaeological assessment process that would apply to a project of that type.
3. terminate the MCEA process that is underway where the project is of a type that is not on either of the proposed streamlined EA project list or archaeological assessment process project list; in which case the project would have no further requirements under the EA Act.

The proposed regulation would set out criteria or requirements that would need to be satisfied in order to terminate a MCEA process in different circumstances. For example, in the circumstances in (3) above, the criteria or requirements would include giving notice and an opportunity to comment, and no concerns having been raised about the project’s potential adverse impacts to Aboriginal or treaty rights.

Projects that were previously exempt or, for private sector projects, not subject to the MCEA as of the transition date but are on the proposed project list, would not have any requirements under EA Act where the proponent has substantially proceeded with the project.

Original Posting

Modernizing Environmental Assessment for Municipal Infrastructure

Ontario is proposing sensible, practical changes that would maintain appropriate environmental oversight while reducing delays on municipal infrastructure projects. We are proposing a new environmental assessment regulation for municipal infrastructure that puts the focus on certain water, shoreline and sewage system projects. This approach will help us eliminate unnecessary burden on lower-impact projects and reduce duplicative requirements to support Ontario’s rapidly growing population.

The ministry amended the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for municipal infrastructure projects (see Background section below for more information) to increase the efficiency of the Class EA process. Continued action is needed, and so we are now proposing to revoke the Municipal Class EA (MCEA) and make a streamlined EA regulation which would provide a clearer, more predictable process for higher-risk projects than can be achieved through the current municipal Class EA framework.

Preliminary consultation on evaluating EA Act requirements for municipal infrastructure projects was completed in Spring 2023. There was strong support from the municipal and housing sectors for maintaining an EA process for higher-risk municipal projects while continuing to improve the process.

Proposed Municipal Project Assessment Process Regulation

We are now proposing to focus Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) requirements for municipal infrastructure projects on more complex water, sewage, and shoreline/in-water works projects led by municipalities.

The proposal includes two key components:

• The Project List that describes the municipal infrastructure project types subject to the process (to be designated as Part II.4 projects under the EA Act).
• The Municipal Project Assessment Process (MPAP) that sets out requirements for consultation, consideration of alternative designs, impact assessment studies, documentation and notification.

The Municipal Class EA (MCEA) and Private Sector Developers Regulation (O. Reg. 345/93) are proposed to be revoked.

Note that this proposal is specific to municipal infrastructure projects that have been subject to the MCEA process. We are not proposing to change which projects would require a Comprehensive EA. The proposed move to a project list approach (ERO posting 019-4219) remains under review at the time of this notice.

Streamlined Project List – Proposed projects subject to the new Regulation

We are proposing that certain water, sewage, and shoreline/in-water infrastructure projects undertaken by municipalities be subject to the EA Act.

Examples of these project types include:

Drinking water facilities

• constructing a new water system including a new well
• establishing a new surface water source
• constructing a new water treatment plant or expanding facility beyond existing rated capacity

Sewage treatment facilities

• constructing a new sewage treatment plant that processes over 50,000 litres of sewage per day
• expanding an existing sewage treatment plant by 25% or more of existing rated capacity, establishing new lagoons, or expanding lagoons beyond existing rated capacity

Stormwater management systems

• constructing or modifying retention/detention facilities for stormwater control where active treatment (chemical/biological) is required

Shoreline/In-water works

• constructing a new dam in a watercourse
• constructing new shoreline works such as offshore breakwaters, groynes (a shore protection structure) or seawalls

For further details on the projects proposed to be subject to the regulation, see the attached Summary of Proposed Requirements in the supporting materials section of this notice.

Proposed projects not to be subject to the new Regulation

Other projects which are currently subject to the MCEA and not listed in the proposed regulation would no longer have EA Act requirements. This would include:

• all projects that are currently subject to Schedule B of the MCEA (2023), including constructing a new pumping station; a new, expansion or replacement of water intake pipe for a surface water source; or, expanding a sewage treatment plant, including relocation or replacement of outfall to receiving water body, up to existing rated capacity where new land acquisition is required;
• certain smaller sewage treatment plant expansions which are currently subject to Schedule C of the MCEA (e.g. expansions to existing facilities less than 25% of existing rated capacity and all new facilities under 50,000 litres per day);
• all municipal roads or new parking lots in any location, reconstruction of any bridges with or without cultural heritage value, all water crossings;
• all private sector infrastructure projects for residents of a municipality regardless of size, including a new sewage treatment plant of any size;
• the municipal projects that are currently exempt through the Class EA or by Section 15.3 (4) of the EA Act (Bill 108) and those proposed to be exempted under the Comprehensive Project List (CPL) regulation proposal, are not proposed to be made subject to the streamlined EA process under this proposed regulation;
• transit projects in the CPL regulation proposal (ERO posting 019-4219) would be subject to the process articulated in that proposal, rather than this proposal

Depending on the project and location, there may be other legislative, regulatory and/or municipal requirements outside of the EA Act. Any applicable permit or approval would still be required. Municipalities will continue to consult on official plans. Municipalities may continue to carry out master servicing planning under their own processes to assess planned municipal infrastructure.

Proposed Assessment Process

An overview of the proposed process to carry out an EA for municipal infrastructure is described below.

The proposed process is based on the regulatory process Transit Project Assessment Process established in 2008 for transit projects.

Before starting the regulated process, which is time-limited, the proponent will be encouraged to initiate work (e.g. pre-consultation for early identification of potential issues and seasonal studies).

Steps in the proposed assessment process:

1. Proponent distributes Notice of Commencement (starts the 6-month timeline)
2. Proponent consults with Indigenous communities, interested persons, and the public for input on the project, evaluates the environmental effects and mitigative measures, identifies the preferred design, and documents the assessment process in an Environmental Project Report (up to 120 days).
   • If the proponent determines that more time is required to address outstanding concerns about a project, they can pause the assessment process for up to 30 days by following the steps outlined in the Summary of Proposed Requirements. A pause may occur more than once, but the total of all pauses cannot exceed 30 days.
3. Proponent publishes a Notice of Completion of the Environmental Project Report (within 120 days of the Notice of Commencement, plus any time outs, to a maximum of 150 days)
4. Proponent provides the Environmental Project Report for review by Indigenous communities, interested persons and the public (30 days).
   • Requests for a Minister’s order may be submitted where there are outstanding concerns that a project may adversely impact constitutionally protected Aboriginal and/or treaty rights. (See more details on Minister’s order request process below)
5. After the review period, whether there is a request for a Minister’s order or not, the Minister may act, on their own initiative (35 days), and take one of the following steps:
   • a. issue a notice to proceed with the project as planned
   • b. impose additional requirements (e.g. require further study or consultation), or
   • c. require preparation of a Comprehensive EA

If the Minister does not act within the 35 days, and there are no requests for a Minister’s order, the project may proceed as planned under the original Environmental Project Report.

For more details about the proposed assessment process, refer to the attached draft Summary of Proposed Requirements in the supporting materials section of this notice.

Request for Minister’s Order for municipal infrastructure projects

Section 17.31 of the EA Act permits requests for a Minister’s Order only on the grounds that an order will prevent, mitigate or remedy any adverse impact of the project on constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights. If such a request is made, the project cannot proceed until the Minister has made a decision.

Concerns related to grounds other than potential adverse impacts to constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights should be directed to the proponent and will not be considered when reviewing a Minister’s Order request.

Ancillary components to municipal infrastructure projects

Ancillary components are additional activities necessary to the primary activities of the project. Proponents must consider ancillary components as part of their project assessment unless those activities (components) are otherwise exempt from the EA Act. For example:

• if the project is an expansion of an existing drinking water treatment facility beyond existing rated capacity, ancillary components may include construction of other facilities like settling tanks or utility corridors;
• projects to expand an existing sewage treatment facility by 25% or more of existing rated capacity may require ancillary settling tanks, buildings or utility corridors;
• projects for the construction of a new stormwater management system may require ancillary roadside ditches or modifications to existing outfalls or infiltration systems.

Where an ancillary component and primary activity are subject to different EA processes, the proponent would not be required to follow two EA processes; rather the proponent would be required to complete the EA process applicable to the primary activity (project).

Projects that are subject to a Comprehensive EA may include an ancillary component that is a designated MPAP project. The proponent will be required to complete the assessment of the ancillary component as part of the Comprehensive EA rather than separately assessing it under the proposed MPAP process. Likewise, if an ancillary activity of an MPAP project is subject to Comprehensive EA, the proponent will be required to complete the assessment as part of the Comprehensive EA.

Guidance on the proposed assessment process

Proponents will be provided with guidance to assist their implementation of the new process with respect to:

• the pre-notification stage (e.g. determining whether a project is subject to MPAP, pre-consultation, and best practices)
• consultation with Indigenous communities including outreach to communities
• consultation with regulatory agencies (e.g. which agencies may be relevant to a project, information needs and when to consult with them)
• types of studies that may be needed to support the assessment of a public municipal infrastructure project (i.e. water, sewage, and shoreline/in-water works)
• addendum process for significant changes to a project
• compliance and monitoring
• termination and re-start of a project
• review of a project that has not commenced within 10 year

Additional changes required to ensure a smooth transition to the proposed MPAP

Should the MPAP Regulation be made, the MCEA and Private Sector Developers Regulation (O. Reg. 345/93) would be revoked. Other regulations under the EA Act that may be made as part of the CPL regulation proposal would be amended as necessary.

The Private Sector Developers Regulation (O. Reg. 345/93) currently designates private sector projects that are for residents of a municipality and that are listed in Schedule C of the MCEA. This regulation is proposed to be revoked, as the ministry is proposing to focus EA Act requirements only on infrastructure projects led by a municipality.

The proposed Regulation would provide for a transition period for projects that are undergoing the MCEA process. The transition provisions would provide that projects that:

• are not on the MPAP Project List may complete the MCEA process or withdraw from the process if notification requirements are met (the result would be that no EA Act requirements would apply). Furthermore, if such projects have a Section 16 Order request(s) prior to the proposed Regulation coming into effect, these will continue to be considered by the Minister and may not proceed until a decision has been made.
• are on the MPAP Project List would be able to complete the EA Act requirements either under the MCEA process or the MPAP

Complementary amendments – regulations made under legislation other than Environmental Assessment Act

We are proposing to make complementary amendments to some regulations made under statutes other than the EA Act that refer to the EA regulations proposed to be revoked, or to the provisions of the EA Act that have been revised.

Municipal infrastructure projects to remain subject to EA processes

Municipalities undertake a wide range of projects which are not a part of this proposal and will continue to be subject to other processes under the EA Act. For example, the planning of freeways by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and expressway projects by municipalities currently requires a Comprehensive EA. As part of the revised CPL regulation proposal, municipal expressways are proposed to be subject to the Class EA for Provincial Transportation Facilities. In addition, certain other projects by municipalities including waste, transit, electricity and waterfront projects have other existing and proposed EA Act requirements, and this proposal does not change those unless otherwise noted. See the revised CPL regulation proposal (ERO posting 019-4219).

Background

What is the Municipal Class EA (MCEA)? [MCEA 2023]

The MCEA sets out a streamlined EA planning process for certain municipal infrastructure projects including certain roads, water and sewage infrastructure (e.g. collector or local roads, drinking water and sewage treatment facilities, stormwater management systems, bridges and other linear, non-vehicle infrastructure). These projects are categorized in schedules based on their complexity or potential for environmental impacts. Each schedule sets out different assessment and consultation requirements. Schedule A/A+ projects are exempt.

What is a Part II.4 Project?

Part II.4 is the new Part of the EA Act that will apply to streamlined EA projects such as those proposed to be designated under the MPAP. Projects designated as Part II.4 projects will be required to undertake a streamlined EA process set out in regulation. The sections in Part II.4 of the EA Act also apply to these projects, including the authority for the Minister to make orders respecting Part II.4 projects.

Related past actions for modernizing EA Act requirements for municipal infrastructure projects

MCEA amendments

In March 2023, the minister approved amendments to the MCEA. [Notice of amendment: Municipal Class Environmental Assessment]

Other current EA modernization initiatives:

Comprehensive Project List (CPL) Regulation

The ministry has consulted on a proposed CPL regulation, which would outline which projects would be subject to a Comprehensive EA, some of which may be undertaken by municipalities (such as certain landfills or waterfront projects for example). See ERO posting 019-4219. This proposal remains under review; but the current proposed regulation for municipal infrastructure is based on the assumption that the CPL regulation has been made and the relevant provisions in the EA Act have been proclaimed. If both regulations are made, it would mean for municipalities that the only municipal projects that will be subject to the EA will be those in the CPL regulation, MPAP regulation or municipal expressways (if the proposal to add expressways to the Class EA for Provincial Transportation Facilities is implemented).