DRAFT COORDINATED APPLICATION, REVIEW AND DECISION GUIDELINES FOR CAGE AQUACULTURE SITES IN ONTARIO January 19, 2009 working copy

Transcription

1 DRAFT COORDINATED APPLICATION, REVIEW AND DECISION GUIDELINES FOR CAGE AQUACULTURE SITES IN ONTARIO 2009 January 19, 2009 working copy Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources In cooperation with: Ontario Ministry of the Environment Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Fisheries and Oceans Canada Environment Canada University of Guelph Cette publication hautement specialisée (Draft Coordinated Application, Review and Decision Guidelines for Cage Aquaculture Sites in Ontario) n est disponible qu en Anglais en vertu du Règlement 411/97 qui en exempte l application de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir de l aide en français, veuillez communiquer avec Linda Maguire au ministère des Richesses naturelles au ou linda.maguire@ontario.ca Draft: January 19,

2 Table of Contents DRAFT COORDINATED APPLICATION, REVIEW AND DECISION GUIDELINES FOR CAGE AQUACULTURE SITES IN ONTARIO TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...5 Purpose of the Guide...5 List of Acronyms used in this Guide...6 APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCESS...7 Submission Format for Applications...7 Summary: Application and Review Process...8 Adaptive Management...11 Figure 1: Four Stage Application and Review Process for Cage Aquaculture Licences in Ontario...12 STAGE 1: INITIAL APPLICATION AND REVIEW Application Form and General Information Application for an Aquaculture Licence (Form: FW 1014) Project Description Crown Land Tenure Arrangements Risk Analysis and Facility Security Detailed Site Description Location Adjacent Uses Biological Information...18 Species at Risk Report: Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Report Operational Plan Operational Layout Description and Maps Production Data Fish Health Management Plan Fallowing Plan Facility Security Plan Assessment of Site Waste Disposal Decommissioning Plan Submission of Initial Application Stage 1 Review Screening Application for Completeness...26 Draft: January 19,

3 Table of Contents Formation of Inter-Jurisdictional Review Committee and Circulation of Initial Application CEA Agency Notification and Project Description CEA Agency to Circulate Project Description for Identification of Potential RAs and FAs Stage 1 Evaluation Notice of Stage 1 Decision...30 STAGE 2: DETERMINE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, CLASS EA-RSFD SCREENING, SITE MARKINGS, INITIAL PUBLIC AND ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION, AND DETERMINATION OF STAGE 3 REQUIREMENTS Determine Applicable Legislation and Process Requirements Determine Applicability of the Class EA-RSFD Determine Applicability of the EBR and Type of Posting Determine Information and Process Requirements of Applicable Federal Legislation Species at Risk Class EA-RSFD Screening Site Marking Initial Public and Aboriginal Consultation Aboriginal Consultation Class EA-RSFD Consultation: Public Notice EBR: Information/Instrument Proposal Notice Establish Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Determination of Stage 3 Requirements Meeting between the Applicant, Inter-Jurisdictional Review Committee Members and the CEA Agency Notice of Stage 2 Decision...50 STAGE 3: DATA COLLECTION, SUBMISSION OF DRAFT APPLICATION, PUBLIC AND ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION, REVIEW AND MITIGATION OF CONCERNS Stage 3 Data and Information Requirements Data Collection Submission of Draft Application Opportunity to Inspect and Comment on Draft Application Aboriginal Consultation Class EA-RSFD Consultation EBR: Update to Information or Instrument Proposal Notice Navigable Waters Protection Act Notification Committee Review of Draft Application and Comments Received Revisions and Additional Consultation...56 Draft: January 19,

4 Table of Contents 3.4 Notice of Stage 3 Decision...56 STAGE 4: THE FINAL APPLICATION, DECISION MAKING AND NOTIFICATION The Final Application Final Decision Notifications Class EA-RSFD: Notice of Completion, Opportunity to Inspect Final ESR Class EA-RSFD: Statement of Completion Notification of Final Decision EBR: Decision Notice Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Update...63 LICENSING INFORMATION...64 Terms and Conditions...64 a) Facility Security...64 b) Reporting of Escape of Fish...64 c) Sediment and Water Quality...65 d) Fish Health...65 e) Site Capacity and Operations...66 f) Annual Report...67 g) Other Conditions...67 Issuance Procedure...67 Dispute Resolution...68 Refusal or Cancellation...68 Transfer...68 Amendment...68 Compliance...69 Decommissioning...69 MNR-MOE Responsibilities...69 Glossary of Terms...70 Appendix A: Agency Contact Information...75 Appendix B: Roles and Responsibilities of Regulatory Agencies...78 Appendix C: Lists of Relevant Guidelines, Manuals, Policies and Legislation...95 Ministry of Natural Resources...95 Ministry of the Environment...96 Fisheries and Oceans Canada...98 Transport Canada...99 Environment Canada...99 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Draft: January 19,

5 Table of Contents Appendix D: Summary of Criteria that will Result in Application Refusal (No- Go Criteria) 102 Appendix E: Dispute Resolution Framework for Aquaculture Licence Conditions 104 Appendix F: Federal Authorities: Mandates and Areas of Expertise Draft: January 19,

6 Application and Review Process: Summary INTRODUCTION Under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) and the Ontario Fish Licensing Regulations, an aquaculture 1 licence is required to culture fish in Ontario (unless otherwise exempted). An aquaculture licence also conveys authority to buy fish to deposit into waters, to sell fish taken from waters, and to transport live fish as set out in the licence. In addition to the aquaculture licence, there are other approval requirements and review processes that regulate cage aquaculture operations under federal and provincial legislation. This guide outlines the four stage application and review process for the aquaculture licence and within that framework it presents a recommended approach to coordinate the requirements of applicable provincial and federal legislation. Applicants are responsible for meeting the requirements of all applicable legislation and regulations and are advised to refer to the legislation directly. This guide builds on the requirements set out in the Interim Cage Culture Site Application Process (2003) and will be updated from time to time in response to the results of monitoring programs, scientific research, experience and regulatory changes. Applicants are advised to contact their local MNR District Office (see Appendix A for contact information) to ensure that they have the most current version of this guide. In the course of developing this policy nine discussion papers were produced which informed the development of this guide and its associated electronic decision support tool (DST). The discussion papers focus on aboriginal concerns, fish communities, fish habitat, fish health, navigable waters, water quality, sediment, species at risk and operational practices. (copies of the discussion papers can be obtained by contacting the Aquaculture Policy and Planning Biologist, Great Lakes Branch, MNR) Purpose of the Guide This guide outlines the aquaculture licence application and review process for cage aquaculture sites in Ontario, including new sites and re-issuance applications for existing sites over Crown or private land, on inland lakes or on the Great Lakes. This also includes applications for expansions of existing sites. It has been prepared for use by applicants and government review agencies. The guide provides a summary of the four stages involved in the cage aquaculture application and review process, including information about: Relevant licences, permits, approvals, and review processes (e.g. environmental assessment) that may be required under federal and provincial legislation; 1 For the purposes of this guide, the definition of aquaculture is as defined in the FWCA. Draft: January 19,

7 Application and Review Process: Summary The information that is required to be submitted by the applicant for each licence, permit, approval, or review process; Where the necessary forms and templates may be obtained; Specific requirements for consultation and notification under federal and provincial legislation; Roles and responsibilities of the applicant; Roles and responsibilities of all regulatory agencies responsible for the review of cage aquaculture applications (Appendix B); Lists of relevant guidelines, manuals, policies, and legislation (Appendix C); Agency contact information for federal and provincial government offices (Appendix A); and A quick reference flowchart to assist in following one coordinated process for meeting all federal and provincial requirements (Figure 1). List of Acronyms used in this Guide CA CEA Act CEA Agency CEAR CEPA Class EA-RSFD DFO DST EA EAA EBR EC EPA ESA ESR FA FEAC FHPR FIPPA FisPp Conservation Authorities Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Canadian Environmental Protection Act Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects Fisheries and Oceans Canada Decision Support Tool environmental assessment Environmental Assessment Act Environmental Bill of Rights Environment Canada Environmental Protection Act Endangered Species Act Environmental Study Report (as per Class EA-RSFD) Federal Authority (as per CEA Act) Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator Fish Health Protection Regulations Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Shorthand for MNR Fisheries Section policies and procedures numbering system Draft: January 19,

8 Application and Review Process: Summary List of Acronyms used in this Guide FWCA FWPp HADD HC LRIA LUP MNR MOE NMA NMP NMS NWPA NWPP OITC OMAFRA OWRA PLA PWQO RA SARA SEV SoC SOPs TC Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Shorthand for MNR Fish and Wildlife Section policies and procedures numbering system harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction (of fish habitat) Health Canada Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act land use permit Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Ministry of the Environment Nutrient Management Act Nutrient Management Plan Nutrient Management Strategy Navigable Waters Protection Act Navigable Waters Protection Program Ontario Introductions and Transfers Committee Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Ontario Water Resources Act Public Lands Act Provincial Water Quality Objectives Responsible Authority (as per CEA Act) Species at Risk Act Statement of Environmental Values (as per EBR) Statement of Completion (as per Class EA-RSFD) Standard Operating Procedures Transport Canada APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCESS This section presents the required format for submission of applications and a summary of the four stages in the application and review process. Submission Format for Applications The submission format for all aquaculture licence applications should meet the following specifications: Draft: January 19,

9 Application and Review Process: Summary All Stage 1 documentation should be entered into, or linked to, the electronic Decision Support Tool (DST) by the applicant and submitted to the MNR on a CD. Applicants should ensure all information submitted for review is complete and accurate. The information provided in the application should be properly referenced to indicate the source of data. Written descriptions should be typed. Maps should be produced with computer software or scanned. Specific requirements pertaining to map scale and other standards are given throughout the guide. Note: Forms, templates, and other required documentation including instructions to assist in their completion are either provided in the appendices, the DST, or a link to an electronic copy is provided within this guide. Summary: Application and Review Process Applications for new or existing cage aquaculture sites in Ontario will be subject to a four stage application and review process, as outlined below. For new sites it is estimated that the process may take up to 3 years or more to complete, although the timing will vary depending on the nature of the application its requirements and the completeness of the information provided. For an illustrative representation of the process, see the flowchart in Figure 1: Four Stage Application and Review Process for Cage Aquaculture Licences in Ontario. Stage 1: Initial Application and Review The applicant submits initial application material and the aquaculture licence application form (see DST)) to the local MNR District Office for review. MNR will screen the application for completeness. Incomplete applications will not be accepted for review and will be returned to the applicant with an explanation of why it is considered incomplete. After an application is determined to be complete with respect to Stage 1 requirements, the inter-jurisdictional review committee (herein referred to as the review committee ) will be assembled for review purposes. The review committee will be chaired by the MNR District Manager (co-chaired by Lake Manager, if applicable) and will consist of members from all agencies (both federal and provincial) with a role in regulating cage aquaculture. The review committee will be responsible for reviewing the application and making recommendations to the MNR District Manager (and Lake Manager, if applicable) on whether the application should proceed to subsequent stages and will also recommend the terms and conditions to be placed on the aquaculture licence, if it is decided that Stage 4 approval will be granted. If the project is likely to be subject to both federal and provincial EA requirements, the Canadian Draft: January 19,

10 Application and Review Process: Summary Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) may also participate in the review committee. To assist in the review process, a DST software package has been developed for use in conjunction with this guide, and was designed for use by both applicants and reviewers. The DST will function as the application package to be completed and submitted by the applicant. Also in Stage 1, the review committee will review the application to identify any obvious no-go factors that may result in application refusal before great expense is incurred by the applicant and regulatory agencies. Appendix D outlines some of the no-go factors that the applicant should consider before preparing the Initial Application and reconsider at each stage of the process. If no-go criteria are identified at this point, the applicant may opt to revise the application to avoid the no-go criteria, if possible. Stage 1 reviews will be completed by the review committee within 30 calendar days of their first meeting. Stage 2: Determine Applicable Legislation and Process Requirements, Class EA-RSFD Screening, Site Marking, Initial Public and Aboriginal Consultation, and Determination of Stage 3 Requirements In this stage, the applicable federal and provincial legislation and process requirements will be determined. If the CEA Act applies, the scope of the federal EA will be determined. If the Class Environmental Assessment for MNR Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects (Class EA-RSFD) applies, the application will be screened by MNR to determine the appropriate category. The applicant will set out site markings if necessary. Initial public, agency and Aboriginal consultation will take place, as appropriate. The review committee will determine the data and information requirements for the Draft Application submission in Stage 3. (If the applicant wishes to begin Stage 3 data collection before Stage 2 has been completed, they may submit a request to MNR.) Note that the review process will vary based on applicability of federal and provincial legislation and that completion of all steps in the four stages may not be required. MNR (and the federal authorities if a federal EA is triggered) will advise the applicant of the appropriate steps to be taken during each stage of the application process. Stage 3: Data Collection, Submission of Draft Application, Public and Aboriginal Consultation, Review and Mitigation of Concerns This stage begins with data collection, identification of measures to mitigate both the potential environmental effects and any concerns identified during initial consultation (Stage 2), and submission of the Draft Application. There are further Draft: January 19,

11 Application and Review Process: Summary opportunities for public, agency and Aboriginal consultation, which may be required under several acts. The Draft Application is used by the review committee to evaluate the physical suitability of the site (e.g. water quality, sediment and habitat) and other considerations such as fish communities and conflicting uses. Stage 4: The Final Application, Decision Making and Notification Stage 4 is the final evaluation phase. The review committee will make a recommendation as to whether the application will be approved for implementation, approved with conditions, or refused. For cage culture on inland lakes, the MNR District Manager is responsible for issuing an aquaculture licence. For cage culture facilities on any of the Great Lakes, the District Manager and Lake Manager share joint responsibility for issuing an aquaculture licence with the District Manager taking the lead. Decisions regarding the approval or refusal of other federal and provincial permits, approvals or licences will, where possible, coincide with Stage 4. Note regarding Licence Re-issuance: The FWCA does not provide for aquaculture licence renewals. It is recommended that an application for reissuance be submitted at least 12 months prior to the expiry of the existing licence. Although the procedural requirements for re-issuance are the same as for new licences, applicants seeking re-issuance will already have: Data and information collected for the issuance of the existing licence (the applicant may be able to update the DST from the previous licence application and submit it for a re-issuance application) Records of the effectiveness of escape prevention mechanisms The results of monitoring and data collection carried out under the terms and conditions of the previous licence Any new science and information pertaining to the species in question, the receiving waters and the risk analysis process. A licence generally should not be re-issued if the licence holder is in violation of conditions of the expiring licence or the regulations (see the Licensing Information section of this guide). Procedures for transfers and amendments of existing licences are given in the Licensing Information section of this guide. Applicants seeking transfers or amendments should consult with the local MNR District Office prior to submitting any application information. Draft: January 19,

12 Application and Review Process: Summary Adaptive Management Adaptive management is management based on continuous learning and the results of ongoing monitoring. This guide and the application and review process will be updated as required. Likewise, the operation of existing aquaculture sites needs to use adaptive management, whereby operational changes may need to be implemented in response to ongoing monitoring and data collection. In the application and review process, projects are reviewed for potential environmental effects of the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning phases of a project. Factors to consider in the adaptive management of an aquaculture operation include: The natural cycles of wild populations and ecological components; The timing of sensitive life cycles and phases of biota in relation to scheduled activities; Duration for which an effect can be measured or become evident; The severity of an effect; The area that may be affected by the project; The area within a population s distribution for which there may be an effect; and The time required for an effect to subside returning the area to preoperation conditions. Draft: January 19,

13 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 Figure 1: Four Stage Application and Review Process for Cage Aquaculture Licences in Ontario Note: This figure must be read in conjunction with the text Applicant prepares Initial Application 1.5 Applicant submits Initial Application to MNR 1.6 Stage 1 Review MNR Screens Application for Completeness Formation of Review Committee & Circulation of Initial Application CEA Agency Notification, Circulate Project Description to Potential RAs and FAs Stage 1 Evaluation (no-go criteria, etc.) 1.7 Stage 1 Decision: Notice to Proceed to Stage 2 or Refusal 2.1 Determine/Confirm Applicable Provincial and Federal Legislation and Process Requirements (inc. CEA Act confirmation and EA Scoping, if applicable) Class EA does not apply (no disposition of rights to Crown land or other Crown resource) 2.2 Class EA-RSFD Screening 2.3 Site Marking (if required) EBR notice applies (Type of postings: Instrument) EBR notice does not apply 2.4 Initial Public and Aboriginal Consultation as per Class EA (if applicable) and/or 1 st EBR; Establish CEAR (if applicable); Aboriginal consultation If Class EA and EBR do not apply, but CEA Act does, re-enter at 2.4 and proceed with 4 stage process as applicable 2.5 Determination of Stage 3 Requirements Meeting with Applicant, Review Committee, and CEA Agency (if applicable) 2.6 Stage 2 Decision: Notice to Proceed to Stage 3 or Refusal If Class EA, EBR notice, and CEA Act do not apply, re-enter at Stage 3 and proceed as applicable Data Collection Submission of Draft Application 3.2 Opportunity to Inspect and Comment on Draft Application as per Class EA (if applicable) and/or 2 nd EBR (update); NWPA public notice (if applicable); CEAR Update (if applicable); Aboriginal consultation 3.3 Committee Review of Draft Application and Comments Received Revisions & Additional Consultation (if required) 3.4 Stage 3 Decision: Notice to Proceed to Stage 4 or Refusal 4.1 The Final Application 4.2 Final Decision Review Committee meets to make final decision on aquaculture licence, and provides recommendation to MNR District Manager. Where possible, other agencies decisions regarding approvals/permits will be timed or coordinated with this stage. Route for: Class EA Cat A or no Class EA Notice of Completion (only required if subject to Class EA, Cat B/C) Public notification of decision, where to inspect the Final Application and Part II Order provisions Statement of Completion (only required if subject to Class EA, Cat B/C) If no Part II Orders, SoC is prepared by MNR and placed on project file, distributed to applicant, Review Committee members, EAAB Notification of Final Decision: notification to applicant and notification to Aboriginal communities (as per consultation process) rd EBR (Decision Notice), explains EBR Leave to Appeal provisions CEAR Update (if subject to CEA Act) Proceed to: Licensing Section: Issuance or Refusal (aquaculture licence); and Other agencies approval/refusal processes as applicable Draft: January 19,

14 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 STAGE 1: INITIAL APPLICATION AND REVIEW 1.1 Application Form and General Information The following information should be submitted as the Initial Application by the applicant under the appropriate tabs of the DST Application for an Aquaculture Licence (Form: FW 1014) Upon request, the MNR District Office or Great Lake Management Unit will provide a copy of the DST in CD format, which functions as the application template. Form FW 1014, located under Tab 1.1, is to be completed in the DST by the applicant. Questions regarding the completion of this form should be directed to the local MNR District Office. Ensure that the proposed species to be cultured is on the List of Species Eligible for Culture in Ontario (Schedule B of the Fish Licensing Regulation, O.Reg 664/98), as applications will only be accepted for species on this list. If the species is currently not listed for culture and the applicant wishes to have the species considered for addition to the list, the procedure is outlined in MNR s Aquaculture Licensing Policy FisPp.9.2.1, Step 13(c). Ensure that contact information for consultants (if applicable) is included with the applicant contact information on the application form (also provide addresses). Where the applicant is a corporation, ensure that a list of names and addresses of the corporation s officers is included. The proper licence fee must be submitted to the local MNR District Office with the Initial Application, and a signed hard copy of Form FW Project Description 2 In a detailed description of the project, the applicant is to provide the following information (not required for re-issuance applications, except where a change in operations is proposed): The purpose of the application and desired outcome Status of the project (e.g. new, existing, addition, repair) o If the application is for licence re-issuance on an existing site, will an expansion or increase in production capacity or feed quota be requested? o Date of original construction (if applicable) Proposed start and completion dates Project components and associated activities 2 If the applicant is of the opinion that the project may require an EA under the CEA Act refer to step for more information. Draft: January 19,

15 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 Construction schedule and methods (including a list of any equipment and material that may be used during the project and details for any temporary works) Whether the proposed work is permanent, temporary, or seasonal Whether the application is for commercial or non-commercial purposes The purpose of production (e.g. for stocking, food production) Whether any federal permits, approvals or authorizations are likely to be required, if known Whether federal funding is being contemplated or federal lands are required Whether a federal agency/authority is the applicant or a partner in the application If known, indicate whether the application will involve a disposition of certain or all rights to a Crown resource and thus be subject to the Class EA-RSFD (this may be determined by answering the question regarding applicability of the Class EA-RSFD in step of this guide). Note regarding Project Alternatives: Although not required in Stage 1, applicants should be aware of the potential need to consider alternatives in later stages. Applications that are subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act) (determined in step 1.6.3) and/or applications that are subject to the Class EA-RSFD (but not screened to Category A) (determined in steps and 2.3) may be required to consider alternatives. Under this Act or the Class EA, the applicant may need to identify alternatives to the proposed application and provide an indication of the cost, effectiveness, potential environmental effects, and feasibility of each alternative. In most cases, consideration of alternatives will address the null alternative (i.e. not proceeding with the project). For addressing Need For, Purpose of Alternatives to and Alternative Means under the CEA Act refer to Crown Land Tenure Arrangements An application to establish a cage aquaculture facility on Crown land automatically triggers a requirement for land tenure. Land tenure in the form of a land use permit or a lease will be issued (if approved) simultaneously with an approved aquaculture licence with synchronized expiry and/or review dates. If Crown land tenure is sought by the applicant, the MNR District Lands and Waters Technical Specialist should be consulted by the review committee (explained further in step 1.6.2). For applications to establish aquaculture operations located on reserves, land tenure instruments pursuant to the Indian Act are required. Draft: January 19,

16 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 An application for an aquaculture licence re-issuance associated with a request for a change to the boundaries of an existing land use permit or lease will require the applicant to submit a new application for Crown land tenure. The applicant must provide a description of the land tenure arrangements necessary for the proposed site, stating whether the site is over Crown land or private land. If over private land, indicate ownership status or provide a letter of permission from the owner. If over Crown land, indicate whether tenure will be sought in the form of a land use permit or lease (see below). For sites that currently have Crown land tenure issued, state the expiry date of the tenure document. Provide this information under Tab 1.1 of the DST. Note: MNR and the agencies involved in the development of this guide will review and assess the possible need for a site remediation bond in the future. MOE requires annual benthic invertebrate and sediment monitoring of a decommissioned site for ten years or until benthic invertebrate communities and sediment chemistry meets reference conditions, whichever occurs first. Land Use Permit (LUP) A land use permit, the more common form of tenure, does not require a formal survey. It is not a registered document and can generally be issued within 30 days, once the environmental assessment (EA) obligations have been met and the decision has been made to approve the disposition. The applicant will be charged an annual fee for the LUP as set in the Crown Land Rental Policy (PL ). LUPs for cage aquaculture sites should be issued for the same five year period as the associated aquaculture licence (synchronized expiry dates). An LUP may be revoked at any time if the permitee does not hold a valid aquaculture licence. Once the LUP is revoked, the permitee no longer has any permission or right to use the Crown land. If site remediation is necessary, MNR may require the permitee to continue to hold the LUP in order to restore the site to a condition acceptable to the Minister of Natural Resources. An LUP is not transferable, but a new LUP would be issued if the associated aquaculture licence was transferred. Lease A lease with no option to purchase may also be considered as a form of tenure. A lease requires a survey prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor. The survey is reviewed and approved by MNR and then deposited in the appropriate Ontario Land Registry Office by the surveyor. A lease can cover multiple sites provided that all sites fall within the jurisdiction of a single land registry office. The applicant should complete the Application for Crown Land form (available from the MNR District Office) and return it to MNR for review. The issuance of a lease generally takes 3-6 months following the decision to approve the disposition. The issuance of a lease will be coordinated with an approved aquaculture licence with synchronized expiry and review dates. Aquaculture leases are normally issued for a term of twenty years and provide for a review every five years coinciding Draft: January 19,

17 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 with the expiry of the associated aquaculture licence. A lease may be revoked at any time if the lessee does not hold a valid aquaculture licence. Once a lease is revoked the lessee no longer has any right, title or interest in the Crown land. A lease is transferable, with consent of the Crown. 1.2 Risk Analysis and Facility Security Under MNR s Risk Analysis and Facility Security Policy FisPp the applicant is required to submit an acceptable risk analysis and facility security plan. The form titled Short Form Risk Analysis for Aquaculture Facilities, which is linked to Tab 1.2 of the DST, should be completed by the applicant and is required as part of the Initial Application. A facility security plan is also required for all applications (see section of this guide) and must be submitted by the applicant in the Initial Application. If the applicant wishes to culture a species in a facility that is less secure than those recommended in the Short Form Risk Analysis, the applicant will be required to perform a Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis. All applications which require a Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis must be referred to the Ontario Introductions and Transfers Committee (OITC). The OITC (chaired by MNR, Fisheries Section) will identify the information that is required to be submitted by the applicant. To complete the Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis, it may be necessary for the applicant to hire a consultant. The applicant is responsible for assessing and demonstrating that the proposed facility and species pose an acceptable risk to the environment. The analysis is to be used in conjunction with the List of Species Eligible for Culture in Ontario (Schedule B of the Fish Licensing Regulation, O.Reg 664/98). Where a Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis is required the applicant must provide a copy of the completed analysis to the Chair of the OITC for review, and attached to Tab 1.2 of the DST as part of the Initial Application. The OITC will make non-binding recommendations, based only on an evaluation of ecological risk, to the MNR District Manager (and Lake Manager, if applicable). 1.3 Detailed Site Description The applicant is to provide a description of the candidate site and any contingency (fallow) site(s) requested, including the following information and maps as part of the Initial Application. Insert the following information and maps under Tab 1.3 of the DST. If information is not available from existing sources, the applicant will be required to collect and submit the information in Stage Location i) A description of the location including: Draft: January 19,

18 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 Name of nearest community (city, town, village, municipality, district, county) Legal description of property (lot, concession, township, section, range) Name of watercourse (river, lake, bay) Access road to proposed work, if applicable Location of the project (latitude and longitude) Topographic/Chart No. (as applicable) Water lease or permit number (if applicable) Crown land tenure instrument number (if applicable) Description of shoreline (ground type, vegetation, slope, other) Description of watercourse bottom (gravel, boulders, bedrock, mud, other) within the land tenure area or, if not on Crown land, under the proposed cages and within the proposed footprint area Average width and depth of waterway at the project site Include information up to the high water mark (see hydrographic charts) Type of navigation (recreational/commercial), if known Total area of land tenure to the nearest tenth of a hectare Maximum Intensive Use Area (see Glossary of Terms) to the nearest tenth of a hectare and, where applicable, as a percent of the total area of land tenure. For licence re-issuances, indicate both the existing and the proposed intensive use area, where applicable. ii) Large scale map marking the site location in relation to the rest of the Province of Ontario (e.g. Ontario Base Map) iii) Map (scale 1:20,000 or 1:50,000) showing the location of the proposed site relative to the surrounding area, documenting the source of the map. Plot the following on the map: Adjacent uses within a five kilometre radius (see below for details), indicating distances (in metres) between the adjacent use and the proposed site(s) Directional arrows showing how the cages will be placed and anchored Direction of prevailing winds and currents Tributaries, wetlands, and areas dominated with aquatic vegetation Latitude and longitude or UTM coordinates of the site(s). iv) Bottom contour map of the bay, channel or immediate vicinity (5 km radius) of the proposed site(s). On the map indicate: Currents (direction, speed) Deepest part of basin Estimated flushing rates Substrate type within the land tenure area or, if not on Crown land, under the proposed cages and within the proposed footprint area. Identify substrate as: o bedrock; Draft: January 19,

19 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 o boulder > 25cm; o cobble 17-25cm; o rubble cm; o gravel, cm; o sand <0.2cm; o silt finer than sand with organic component; o clay: or o hardpan clay. Shoreline interface: The ordinary high water mark shall be used to establish the beginning of fish habitat in lake shoreline areas. For the Great Lakes this refers to the 80 th percentile elevation above chart datum as described in DFO s Fish Habitat Fact Sheet. Refer to DFO fact sheet Fish Habitat and Determining the High Water Mark on Lakes. Important fish habitat such as significant spawning or nursery areas of managed fish species and habitats of species protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) or the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). v) Current photographs of the proposed work site with reference points (photos of land-based and open-water work sites) Adjacent Uses For new sites and re-issuances that request expansion (i.e. expanded land tenure boundaries or increased feed quota), describe all adjacent land uses, such as another aquaculture operation, existing buildings and shoreline structures (e.g. residences, cottages, drinking water intake structures, waste treatment facilities), communities, Aboriginal/First Nation communities, terrestrial farms, recreational, subsistence, commercial boating and/or fishing activities and associated facilities (e.g. docks, marinas, processing facilities), access roads, power lines, shore transformers, areas of municipal or provincial planning control, etc. Plot the adjacent uses on the 1:20,000 or 1:50,000 map as described above, including distances (m) from the proposed site(s) to adjacent uses. Plot the property lines bordering the proposed site and plot the high/low water marks on the map Biological Information For new site applications, the applicant is to provide any existing biological information, also under Tab 1.3. For example, data on aquatic vegetation community, fish community or critical habitat data, such as spawning or nursery habitat, migratory corridors, and the presence of species at risk 3 (SAR) must be included. Biological information required for re-issuance applications that involve 3 The term species at risk (SAR) includes species listed under both the SARA and the ESA, Draft: January 19,

20 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 a request for expanded land tenure boundaries will be determined on a case by case and will be communicated to the applicant in Stage 2. For proposed sites or expansions (land tenure) within one kilometer of a tributary or identified spawning area it should be determined if vulnerable species of drifting fry are likely to be encountered in the area of operation. If the proposed site or expansion (land tenure) is downstream from an important area frequented by spawning fish and their progeny, information on the fish species utilizing the habitat resource should be considered. Information should include identification of potential areas of fry production and their significance, anticipated fry emergence and concentrations, and temporal movement of fry toward cage areas. Habitat Resources Report: A report on habitat resources and an assessment of potential effects must be submitted for all new applications, and where a re-issuance is associated with a request for expanded land tenure boundaries. The report must: Include information on inventory and assessment methods and sources of information used; identify historical surveys of habitat and related fisheries information that may be available; include a near shore habitat inventory for projects that locate cages in shallow water (<10m); include a video survey of the proposed land tenure area or, if not Crown land, the area of the footprint of the proposed site; include local knowledge of fish species habitat utilization; include an impact statement categorizing fish use and potential for sediment accumulation for projects where littoral areas have well defined interstitial spaces; outline potential activities, stressors and affects to fish habitat; characterize the effects of the proposed operation relative to their impact on productive capacity of fish habitat; describe the scale of negative effects and include the geographic extent, duration and intensity of the effects; consider fish and fish habitat sensitivity, including species sensitivity, species dependence on habitat, rarity, and habitat resiliency; and provide mitigation measures to reduce/eliminate those impacts. Species at Risk Report: A Species at Risk Report is required for all applications. The term species at risk is meant to include species listed under both the SARA and the ESA. All applicants are to ensure the inclusion of SAR information in their application. Regulatory agencies will provide guidance and sources of Draft: January 19,

21 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 information to ensure that the applicant is aware of his/her responsibilities with respect to SAR. For new sites, applicants are to submit a SAR report under Tab 1.3 of the DST. The report must include sources of information and data bases used; a summary of any field surveys identified as necessary by regulatory agencies; a summary of any other surveys done relevant to SAR; an outline of potential affects to SAR; and proposed mitigation measures to reduce/eliminate those impacts. For existing sites, if SAR issues have come up during the operation of the facility, a report should be submitted under Tab 1.3 that indicates how the issues were addressed. The report, where required, should describe changes in SAR status, distribution, etc. The report must include sources of information and data bases used; a summary of any field surveys identified as necessary by regulatory agencies; a summary of any other surveys done relevant to SAR; an outline of potential affects to SAR; and proposed mitigation measures to reduce/eliminate those impacts. Permits may be required under the federal SARA or provincial ESA, depending on the effect the facility has on SAR. Information on SAR can be obtained from the websites listed at the end of this document or the nearest Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) District Office ( and MNR s SAR website ( Distribution maps for aquatic SAR throughout southern Ontario are provided by DFO to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Parks Canada Agency, Conservation Authorities and other government agencies and will be updated on an annual basis. They are available on the Conservation Ontario web site at If the proposed site is outside of these areas, the applicant must check the SARA Public Registry at If uncertain about the presence or status of aquatic species at risk, the applicant can also consult with the regional local DFO office. The DFO distribution maps are the most detailed and up-to-date maps for aquatic species available and may differ from Environment Canada s on-line maps. The listing of a SAR under SARA can occur only after a Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) status report has been completed. Upon listing, the prohibitions apply. Similarly, the listing of a species under the ESA occurs after the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) has submitted a report to the Minister. It is advisable that the applicant check the COSEWIC and MNR species at risk websites for current COSEWIC status reports for the listing of new SAR and for information on reports by COSSARO. Early contact with relevant government review agencies is advised to ensure that the review process is understood and the review time is as short as possible. Draft: January 19,

22 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 Existing biological data will be entered in Stage 1 using the document Biological Information Report under Tab 1.3 of the DST. Additional biological data collection may be required for new site applications or for re-issuance applications involving a request for increased land tenure area. MNR will notify the applicant of any data collection requirements in Stage Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Report For re-issuance applications, the applicant must include a summary of environmental monitoring that was conducted during operations under the previous licence, and a discussion of any problems encountered, how they were resolved and the steps that are being taken to help prevent the recurrence of previous problems. For example, large scale escapes and water quality and benthic monitoring and mitigation results from the previous licence period will be discussed therein. 1.4 Operational Plan An Operational Plan is required for all new and re-issuance applications. The applicant must provide a comprehensive Operational Plan detailing the layout and design of the proposed facility and how operations will be conducted, as described below. If the applicant has future expansions planned for a new site, it would be advisable to include these details within the initial application. Submit all Operational Plan information and maps under Tab 1.4 of the DST as part of the Initial Application. If an existing site has experienced any large scale escapes in the previous licence period, changes made to the operation to prevent similar escapes in the future must be identified in the Operational Plan (e.g. changes to Operational Layout or Facility Security Plan). In addition to the Operational Plan, if federal funding is being considered the applicant will be required to submit a business plan directly to the funding agency. The applicant should contact the funding agency for more detail Operational Layout Description and Maps Provide one or more large scale site maps (1:5,000) under the Tab Maps & Diagrams of the DST showing the proposed facility layout and information outlined below, drawn to scale. Provide the GPS coordinates for the site (+/- 5m accuracy). If more than one cage array configuration or layout is planned, applicants must submit diagrams of all possible scenarios accompanied by a brief description of how and when the different configurations would be used. Plot the top view of the layout of the proposed site, including: The cage aquaculture facility s expected footprint (i.e. zone of maximum accumulation (ZMA)); Draft: January 19,

23 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 Tenure boundary (current and/or proposed; must encompass the facility footprint), if applicable; Proposed benthic invertebrate and sediment sampling sites and reference sites (refer to Sediment Discussion Paper, MOE January, 2009): o Nine sampling locations within the ZMA; o Nine sampling locations along the perimeter of the land tenure, downstream of the cages and in the prevailing current direction; and o Two reference sites, >1km from the proposed site of operation, that are comparable to the ZMA and land tenure boundary. Net cage array(s) and/or other containment structures (indicate the maximum number of structures that may be installed and the dimensions, location and number of cages); Anchor blocks and mooring lines (indicate the depth of water at the anchor blocks); Navigational markers (as required by TC); Potential navigational pathways through or around facility structures; Buildings and floats, including staff (living) quarters (if applicable); Shore attachments, including walkways, utilities, cables, catwalks or docks; fuel and chemical storage; lights; access to the site (e.g. roads); domestic water lines (if applicable); mortality storage and net cleaning stations (if applicable); bottom depth contours, in recommended 10-metre intervals from the lowwater mark (indicate source of bathymetric data); predominant current direction(s) map scale, source of the map, and true north. Provide diagrams that show a side view that is drawn to scale (1:2,000), encompassing all proposed site development plans including: Cage dimensions and number of cages Anchor blocks, mooring lines, marker buoys and shore attachments Other buildings or facilities to be constructed on site. Refer to sample maps in the DST. The Operational Layout will form part of the Aquaculture Licence, if the application is approved in Stage Production Data The applicant must complete the Production Data Chart linked from the DST under Tab 1.4, including information for all species to be kept at the location as stated on the completed Application for an Aquaculture Licence (step 1.1.1). Draft: January 19,

24 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 Harvest yield and feed requirement calculations should be based on 100 percent survival through the duration of the stated production period. With the exception of the amount of feed required (i.e. feed quota), the production details requested in this table will not become terms and conditions of an aquaculture licence, if approved. The submitted data will be analyzed by the review committee in order to determine the feasibility of the proposed site production in consideration of the biophysical capability of the site. Information provided elsewhere in the application (including currents and facility infrastructure), in addition to historical data on farm wastes and underwater site surveys (if required), may also inform this analysis. Information on the stock (strain and source) and sex of the fish is requested as part of the risk analysis Fish Health Management Plan A site-specific Fish Health Management Plan (FHMP) must be submitted in the Initial Application under Tab 1.4. The minimum requirements of a FHMP are detailed in the template provided in the DST. FHMPs will be reviewed by licensees, updated as needed and re-submitted every five years in coordination with the aquaculture licence re-issuance cycle. FHMPs are living documents that will change as new information, science and technology becomes available Fallowing Plan The fallowing plan is an optional component of the Operational Plan, to be submitted only if the applicant proposes to incorporate a fallowing strategy into the operation. Use the linked document under Tab 1.4 of the DST Facility Security Plan The Facility Security Plan will describe how the applicant will manage the facility to ensure that escapes of farmed fish do not occur, or are minimized to the full extent possible, and will be included in the licence, if approved. The plan must include a Containment Strategy and a Contingency Plan for Large Scale Escapes and will include: Containment Strategy: This strategy should include requirements for site/structure maintenance, monitoring, and recording [including inspection by a qualified person of structural integrity in spring (after ice out) and mid fall (prior to ice in)]. Describe the technology to be employed for the rearing of the proposed species (e.g. bag or open water cage). Include specifications for cage construction and netting to be used. It should describe practices the operator will employ to minimize escapes while moving, grading and harvesting fish on site. Describe all routine inspections that will occur including net strengths, net integrity, mooring, anchors and lines, etc. that will be undertaken as preventative measures to avoid unplanned releases of fish. If an existing site has experienced any large scale escapes in the previous licence period, changes made to the operation to prevent similar escapes in the future must be identified and described in the Operational Plan (e.g. Draft: January 19,

25 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 changes to operational layout, design, monitoring and operating practices, etc.). Contingency Plan for Large Scale Escapes: Describe how the operator will work with communities to mitigate negative impacts to communities from any resulting increase in fishing pressure. (e.g. community concerns regarding parking, waste management) Use the linked document under Tab 1.4 of the DST Assessment of Site A review and endorsement (stamp/signature) by a person who has assessed the design of the containment structures, accessory floats and mooring equipment for their suitability and safety at this location is required. This review must meet the requirements of either Option 1 or Option 2 below. Option 1 - Normal Conditions: In most cases, the review and endorsement may be completed by any qualified professional. If meteorological conditions at the site or the facility infrastructure warrant, a more rigorous review (Option 2) may be required. For the purpose of this review, a qualified professional can be a company employee or a cited individual with expertise in designing and installing containment structures and improvements specific to aquaculture facilities. The applicant must provide a covering letter identifying the qualified professional, as well as a curriculum vitae outlining the individual s knowledge, skills and abilities. Where possible, references should also be provided from others who have observed and evaluated this person s work. Supplier endorsement of the person is not sufficient, unless the individual has been employed by the supplier to design and install systems. Option 2 - Extraordinary Conditions: There are two situations that may warrant a review by a specialized third-party professional such as a surveyor, engineer or another third-party professional with comparable qualifications or expertise in the installation of aquaculture infrastructure: if the facility will employ technology that is relatively new and has not been widely tested within the aquaculture industry, and/or; if high-energy weather, wave or current conditions are predicted at the site. The initial decision on the type of review (Option 1 or Option 2) may be made by the applicant. Upon receiving the application, however, MNR staff in conjunction with the review committee may deem that site conditions warrant the more extensive review (Option 2), and may require applicants to pursue this option. Applicants are strongly advised to contact the MNR District Office to establish which option is appropriate prior to completing and submitting the application. Specifics of the Review Under either Option 1 or 2 above, the following factors must be considered in the review of the facility design: - the manufacturer s design specifications for cages and other equipment; Draft: January 19,

26 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 - the layout and design of the mooring system (for risk minimization); and, - the experience of the mooring crew or mooring consultants in relation to: o meteorological conditions and seasonal weather patterns; o oceanographic conditions, and currents; and, o upland topography, site bathymetry and substrate. A professional surveyor is a professional person with the academic qualifications and technical expertise to practice the science of measurement and to apply that expertise to the purpose of planning the design and/or installation of improvements and containment structures at an aquaculture facility. A certified practising engineer may also be hired by an aquaculture company to design and/or install improvements and containment structures at the aquaculture facility Waste Disposal The applicant will describe how waste will be managed, including, but not limited to, mortality and offal collection and disposal, a contingency plan for the disposal of fish in the event of a large scale mortality event, disposal of chemicals, therapeutants and refuse. Use the linked document under Tab 1.4 of the DST Decommissioning Plan Describe the schedule, methods, materials and equipment to be used to remove all structural and support features when operations cease. Describe any improvements that will be done to restore natural conditions. Describe monitoring that will be carried out to ensure environmental impact issues are resolved, including annual benthic invertebrate and sediment monitoring for ten years or until benthic invertebrate communities and sediment chemistry meets reference conditions, whichever occurs first. Describe any other procedures that will occur if operations cease. The removal of equipment and site remediation activities may result in the removal or alteration of shoreline, bottom or water column structure and the suspension or release of silt, organisms and organic debris to the water column. These activities can result in a change to fish habitat structure and complexity and cause short-term increases in suspended sediment concentrations and deposition of suspended material on benthic habitat. MOE and the local DFO Habitat District Office should be contacted prior to decommissioning. Activities involved in the removal of structures and site remediation may also interfere with navigation. When planning the decommissioning of a site TC should also be consulted. 1.5 Submission of Initial Application The applicant shall submit a signed hard copy of Form FW 1014, and the application on a CD (marked with the date of submission), including all Stage 1 Draft: January 19,

27 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 information requirements (as described in sections 1.1 through 1.4.4) to the local MNR District Office for review (see Appendix A for MNR District Office locations and other contact information). Note to Applicant: The project file will be publicly accessible. If the application contains proprietary information, the applicant should clearly identify anything considered to be proprietary. Proprietary information is protected under the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the federal Access to Information Act and Privacy Act. The information requirements detailed in Sections 1.1 through are a minimum requirement for the Initial Application. The applicant may be notified of further information requirements in Stage 2 as determined on a case by case basis. 1.6 Stage 1 Review Screening Application for Completeness Upon receipt of an application, the MNR District Office will screen it to ensure that Stage 1 requirements have been fulfilled, and will respond to the applicant within 30 days. If Stage 1 information requirements have not been met, an application will be considered incomplete. Incomplete applications will not be accepted for review and will be returned to the applicant within this 30 day period. The MNR District Manager will notify the applicant in writing of MNR's decision not to proceed with further review of the application and will identify the reasons why the application is considered incomplete. Where a licence cannot be issued because the application is considered to be incomplete it is not considered to be a refusal of licence for the purposes of Section 71 of the FWCA. Once an application is determined to fulfill Stage 1 requirements, and the proper licence fee has been received, a working project file will be created by the MNR District Office containing all application information as specified throughout this guide and any other information deemed relevant to the application Formation of Inter-Jurisdictional Review Committee and Circulation of Initial Application An inter-jurisdictional review committee ( the review committee ) is to be established at this time, chaired by the MNR District Manager (joint responsibility with Lake Manager, if applicable) and comprised of representatives from: MNR District Office (provincial lead) MNR Great Lakes Management Unit, if applicable MNR Great Lakes Branch (aquaculture policy support role) Draft: January 19,

28 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 Any other section of MNR with a potential interest (e.g. Biodiversity Section, Ontario Parks) MOE (play a significant role in recommending appropriate licence conditions and management actions to ensure water and sediment quality is protected in and around cage aquaculture operations) OMAFRA, where applicable Any other provincial agency with a potential interest, as determined by MNR DFO District Office/Operations Transport Canada NWP and Environment (TC) Environment Canada (EC) (if required, as determined by DFO and EC) Any other federal agency with a potential interest as determined by DFO and TC (e.g. federal funding agencies such as FedNor, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or Industry Canada). The members of the review committee will work together to coordinate, where possible, all applicable federal and provincial processes, information and consultation requirements, and final decisions (approvals/permits/licences). Member agencies will share information in a timely manner, in order to reduce duplication of effort by the applicant. The MNR District Office will forward the Initial Application to the members of the review committee. Throughout the application and review process, the review committee will be responsible for reviewing the application with respect to individual agency jurisdiction and providing input to the MNR District. Review committee members agree to meet and correspond as needed on a case by case basis CEA Agency Notification and Project Description The CEA Act applies to federal authorities when they contemplate some action in relation to a project that would enable it to proceed in whole or in part. A federal EA may be required when a federal authority: Is the proponent of a project; Provides financial assistance to the proponent; Makes federal lands available for the project; or Issues certain permits or licences, or other approvals. A proposed aquaculture project that requires support from a federal department in one of the ways listed may require an EA in accordance with the CEA Act. CEA Agency Notification If at this time it is suspected that the project may require a federal EA, the federal co-chair of the review committee informs the applicant of the requirement to submit a copy of the Initial Application to the CEA Agency s Ontario Office. Draft: January 19,

29 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 It is possible that the applicant may have established contact with federal departments which are regulators (e.g. DFO, TC) or federal funding agencies in the preliminary stages of the planning process, before submission of the Initial Application and before any EA requirements are known or confirmed. In these situations, the federal departments should notify the CEA Agency of any application that may trigger the CEA Act as soon as possible. If prior contact had not been established, informed federal departments will notify the CEA Agency upon receipt of the Initial Application from MNR. Applicant Submits Project Description (or Initial Application) to the CEA Agency The federal EA process usually requires that the applicant submit a project description to the CEA Agency as soon as the appropriate level of information is available (e.g. the nature of the project and its location, whether any federal permits or authorizations will be required and whether federal funding is being contemplated or federal lands are required). The purpose is to determine whether the CEA Act applies to a specific project and to identify potentially interested federal authorities. The information contained in the Initial Application may be considered equivalent to the CEA Act project description information requirements; however this must be confirmed with the CEA Agency. If a separate project description is required, the CEA Agency will work with the applicant in advising them of information to be included in the project description and the timing of its submission. For assistance in preparing a project description, applicants are asked to refer to the CEA Agency s "Operational Policy Statement for Preparing Project Descriptions under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act" 4 (listed in Appendix C). Once complete, the project description can be sent to the CEA Agency (Ontario Region). Note: In order to identify opportunities for federal/provincial EA coordination early in the process, the applicant should also indicate in the project description whether the application will be subject to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). This may be determined by answering the question regarding applicability of the Class EA-RSFD in step of this guide. If it is determined that both the CEA Act and the Class EA-RSFD are triggered (i.e. a multijurisdictional screening), then a representative of the CEA Agency will lead the coordination of the federal EA processes as the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC). In a federal-only screening (i.e. no provincial EA requirements) one of the RAs will take the role of the FEAC. If there is 4 While all of the information requirements outlined in the operational policy statement may not be available during the preliminary stages of the planning process, applicants are encouraged to prepare a project description once sufficient information is available to establish the federal EA requirements for the project. Draft: January 19,

30 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 agreement between the CEA Agency and the RA(s), the role of FEAC may be delegated from an RA to the CEA Agency, or vice versa. For further information on federal/provincial EA coordination, refer to the draft document: Federal/Provincial Environmental Assessment Coordination: A Guide for Proponents and the Public (listed in Appendix C) CEA Agency to Circulate Project Description for Identification of Potential RAs and FAs The CEA Agency will circulate the project description (or Initial Application) to relevant federal authorities, to identify responsible authorities (RAs) and expert federal authorities (FAs) in accordance with the Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements (allow a minimum of six weeks). Once responses are received from the federal authorities, the CEA Agency will advise the applicant (during Stage 2) as to whether the CEA Act may apply, the type of EA that may be required (e.g. screening, comprehensive study, etc.), and of any known/potential RAs and FAs. If it is determined that the application is subject to both federal and provincial EA legislation 5, or where the application is subject to a Comprehensive Study process, the CEA Agency will appoint a FEAC. If the project description (or Initial Application) contains insufficient information for potential RAs to determine whether there is a federal EA responsibility, the CEA Agency will document the additional information requirements requested by the potential RAs and forward these to the applicant Stage 1 Evaluation The DST will be used by the review committee to support their evaluation of applications. In the event that no-go criteria are identified by the DST, the review committee will recommend to the MNR District Manager (and Lake Manager, if applicable) that the application be refused as submitted (refer to the Licensing Information section of this guide). The criteria for determining whether the Initial Application may proceed to Stage 2 may include but are not limited to: Identification of any no-go criteria (refer to summary in Appendix D) Non-compliance with any applicable federal or provincial legislation or policies 5 Procedures for the coordination of multi-jurisdictional EAs have been prepared by the CEA Agency and MOE and are available by contacting the Regional Office of the CEA Agency. Draft: January 19,

31 Application and Review Process: Stage 1 Identification of non-compliance in existing operations (review of compliance audits) 1.7 Notice of Stage 1 Decision Based on the recommendations of the review committee, and within 30 days of the committee s first meeting, the MNR District Manager will issue the Notice of Stage 1 Decision, to either: Proceed to Stage 2 or Refuse the application (refer to Licensing Information Refusal or Cancellation). The Notice of Stage 1 Decision will be sent to the applicant via registered mail. A decision for the application to proceed to Stage 2 is not to be interpreted as support for the application. A decision regarding approval of an application will not be made until all stages of the application review process are complete. Operations will not be authorized to proceed until the appropriate licences, permits and approvals have been issued. The notice will inform the applicant of the Stage 2 process and include a list of all approvals, licences, permits and authorizations that may be required for the application (compiled by the review committee members). If any no-go criteria were identified by the review committee, the applicant may opt to revise the proposal to avoid the no-go criteria if possible. This notice will not advise as to whether the application is subject to the CEA Act, as it will not be known at this point. Confirmation of CEA Act triggers and RAs/FAs will be communicated to the applicant by the CEA Agency in Stage 2. Note: The applicant retains full responsibility for ensuring that the application process undertaken will meet the requirements for all applicable approvals, permits, and authorizations. Copies of the Notice of Stage 1 Decision will be placed in DST Tab 7 (Resource Use) and sent to review committee members and the CEA Agency (if applicable). Draft: January 19,

32 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 STAGE 2: DETERMINE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, CLASS EA-RSFD SCREENING, SITE MARKINGS, INITIAL PUBLIC AND ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION, AND DETERMINATION OF STAGE 3 REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Determine Applicable Legislation and Process Requirements As previously stated, the federal and provincial legislation that may be applicable to cage aquaculture applications is variable. Every application will generally follow the same four stage process, but may omit certain steps (or parts of steps) if the application is not subject to the legislation that requires the step. Where the Figure 1 flowchart (Four Stage Application and Review Process for Cage Aquaculture Licences in Ontario) and the text of the guide indicate that the applicability of the step is variable, the applicant should verify with the appropriate government contact whether or not that particular step is required. To review the flowchart, refer back to: Figure 1: Four Stage Application and Review Process for Cage Aquaculture Licences in Ontario Determine Applicability of the Class EA-RSFD The application will be subject to MNR s Class EA-RSFD if there is a disposition of certain or all rights to Crown resources. Determine: Does the application involve a disposition of certain or all rights to Crown resources? Examples of dispositions include: a land use permit or lease of Crown land a request for a change to the boundaries of an existing LUP or lease, because a new LUP/lease is therefore required and will be subject to MNR s Class EA-RSFD a licence issued for an operation in all the waters of a natural pond or small lake, because this results in a disposition of rights to the fish naturally occurring in the water body (see FisPp.9.2.1). Under the EAA if a re-issuance application for an aquaculture licence is in association with a valid long-term lease that was issued in a previous licence cycle (i.e. now in its 5 th, 10 th or 15 th year of a 20 year lease), then the existing lease can not be re-screened and the Class EA-RSFD does not apply. The lease in association with the previous aquaculture licence would have been subject to the Class EA-RSFD and screened to the appropriate Category when the application for tenure was first received. See Step for circumstances in which MNR has made a policy decision to use the Class EA-RSFD screening Draft: January 19,

33 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 process to determine the appropriate level of consultation where MNR does not have an obligation under the EAA to apply the Class EA-RSFD. Yes: The Class EA-RSFD applies. No: The Class EA-RSFD does not apply Determine Applicability of the EBR and Type of Posting Most aquaculture applications require some form of Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) posting (notices are prepared and posted by MNR). The following section explains how to determine whether the EBR is applicable and what type of posting (information or instrument proposal) will be required. The Environmental Bill of Rights Classification of Proposals for Instruments Regulation sets out that issuance of an aquaculture licence is subject to the EBR instrument posting requirements if: the applicant is required by MNR to submit a Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis (see FisPp.9.2.5); or the licence authorizes the culture of fish in a cage in water covering Crown land or covering land described in letters patent issued under the Public Lands Act (PLA) as a water lot or part of the bed of a body of water. However, Section 32(1)(b) of the EBR sets out that the requirement to post an instrument proposal notice and decision notice for an aquaculture licence under consideration does not apply where, in the Minister s opinion (delegated as per the Delegation of Authority manual to a number of positions, including MNR District Manager), the issuance would be a step towards implementing an undertaking/project approved by a decision under the EAA. In these cases, MNR will utilize the Environmental Registry to post an information notice with a comment period and an updated information notice to advise of the decision. First determine: (a) Was it determined in step that the application is subject to the Class EA- RSFD? Yes: Therefore, the type of EBR posting required will be: Information. Proceed to step and follow all applicable steps of the four stage process. Note that step 2.2: Class EA-RSFD Screening applies to this scenario. No: Proceed to next question (b) (b) Is the applicant required to submit a Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis (see FisPp.9.2.5)? Draft: January 19,

34 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 Yes: Therefore, the type of EBR posting required will be: Instrument Proposal. Proceed to step and follow all applicable steps of the four stage process. Note that step 2.2: Class EA-RSFD Screening does not apply to this scenario. No: Proceed to next question (c) (c) Would the proposed licence authorize the culture of fish in a cage in water covering land described in letters patent issued under the PLA as a water lot or part of the bed of a body of water (e.g. private ownership of a water lot or part of a lake bed)? Yes: Therefore, the type of EBR posting required will be: Instrument Proposal. Proceed to step and follow all applicable steps of the four stage process. Note that step 2.2: Class EA-RSFD Screening does not apply to this scenario. No: Proceed to next question (d) d) Does the water body associated with the application meet all of the following restrictions? The water body associated with the application: is wholly within the boundaries of privately owned land, is not on a regional floodplain, and does not have a connection or outflow to natural waters (although it can contain water from surface run-off, natural springs, ground water or water pumped from a stream or lake). Yes: If the water body associated with the application meets all of the above restrictions (e.g. quarry on private land, spring-fed with no outflow, not on flood plain), there will be no requirement for EBR postings. Proceed to step and follow all applicable steps of the four stage process. Note that steps 2.2 and 2.3 do not apply to this scenario. No: If the water body associated with the application does not meet all of the above criteria (e.g. if there is a connection to other water bodies, it is on a flood plain, only part of the bed of the water body is owned, or part of shoreline is not owned), the type of EBR posting required in later stages will be: Information. Proceed to step and follow all applicable steps of the four stage process. Note that step 2.2: Class EA-RSFD Screening does not apply to this scenario. However, if the aquaculture licence application is for an existing operation (re-issuance) with a valid lease that was issued at the time of a previous re-issuance, and it has screened to No in 2.1.2(d), then Step 2.2 will be used as a guide to screen the application for potential environmental Draft: January 19,

35 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 effects and/or public or agency concern. Although in this case MNR is not obligated under the EAA to apply the Class EA-RSFD, the Class EA- RSFD Reference Manual (Table 3.1 Screening Criteria) will be used as a guide to determine the level of potential impact or concern and the appropriate level of consultation to be undertaken. The screening criteria will be documented by the review committee and retained on the MNR project file. The requirements of the Class EA-RSFD will not apply e.g. Part II Order and Statement of Completion Determine Information and Process Requirements of Applicable Federal Legislation Navigable Waters Protection Act Approval If an approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) is required, the applicant should begin the process of meeting NWPA application requirements, as directed by TC. The Navigable Waters Protection Program (NWPP) requires that for all works, including cage aquaculture sites, application is made to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities under the NWPA and approval is received through the local NWPP or Regional Safety Office before placing such works in navigable waters. Applications are reviewed for location, design, and possible interference to public navigation and are then processed under the relevant section. Those that do not pose a substantial interference are provided a letter to this effect under authority of section 5(2) of the act. If public navigation concerns are identified, a review under 5(1) must proceed, thereby triggering a CEA Act review with TC as an RA. The Navigable Waters Protection Act, s.5 (1)(a) states that: No work shall be built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the work and the site and plans thereof have been approved by the Minister, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems fit, prior to commencement of construction The NWPA review process requires that the applicant make the public aware of the proposed work as defined in section 9(3) of the act, address any navigational concerns raised by the department or the public and undergo an environmental assessment under the CEA Act. Step in this guide outlines the public notification requirements of the NWPA. Note that this is a separate notification process from that which may be required under the CEA Act. Note: NWPA approvals are issued for a five year term. Where possible, issuance of NWPA approvals should be synchronized with the expiry dates of the aquaculture licence and land use permit (if approved) as these are also issued for five year terms. Draft: January 19,

36 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 Fisheries Act Authorization The DFO Habitat Management Program reviews cage aquaculture applications under the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act for potential effects to fish and fish habitat. These reviews are guided by the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (1986). DFO also has responsibility for listed aquatic species requiring protection as per the requirements of the SARA. Effects at cage aquaculture facilities may include the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat (Sect. 35) fish passage at an obstruction (Sect. 20), and potential for fish mortality (Sect. 30 & 32). For more information on the Fisheries Act, see Appendix B. For a number of routine projects that pose little risk to fish habitat, DFO's Habitat Management Program developed Operational Statements. For these low risk works, acceptable practices are outlined in each Operational Statement. When the conditions and Measures to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat found within the applicable Operational Statement are met, one may proceed without a DFO review. Operational Statements that may apply to aquaculture projects include Dock and Boathouse Construction, and Moorings and Timing Windows (web links provided in Appendix C). With appropriate site selection and mitigation measures, the potential effect to fish habitat may be considered low risk. If an authorization under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act for the HADD of fish habitat is required, the applicant should confirm information and process requirements and proceed as directed by DFO. In situations where DFO issues an Authorization under the Fisheries Act, DFO has additional responsibilities under CEAA. Refer to Appendix B: Roles and Responsibilities of Regulatory Agencies for more information about the Fisheries Act and DFO s mandate, and Appendix C: Lists of Relevant Guidelines, Manuals, Policies and Legislation. Other Federal Approvals Federal representatives on the review committee will notify the applicant of any other approvals that may be required and will notify MNR if the approvals need to be in place before an aquaculture licence is issued. If at any point in this application and review process a potential CEA Act trigger is identified by the applicant, the applicant should notify the CEA Agency and/or the RA(s) to begin the process outlined in step (CEA Agency Notification and Project Description) Species at Risk In the absence of any SAR, the application review proceeds as it normally would with no further SARA or ESA 2007 considerations required. Draft: January 19,

37 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 If there are SAR in the area further consideration of SARA and/or ESA 2007 is required. While MNR and DFO are working towards harmonizing approvals and permitting under the SARA and the ESA 2007 to the extent possible, it will be a while before these mechanisms are in place. In the interim it may be necessary to receive authorizations under both Acts. Species at Risk Act SARA does not replace the DFO s Risk Management Framework. Consideration of the SARA prohibitions becomes an additional consideration within the components of the Framework. The siting of a new aquaculture facility would be reviewed by DFO under the Fisheries Act as described in section If there are SAR in the area, the following DFO flow chart would be followed: Draft: January 19,

38 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 Decision points for other review agencies (EC, Parks Canada Agency, MNR) may follow similar decision points for their areas of responsibility. Endangered Species Act, 2007 MNR will take into consideration the ESA 2007 provisions when reviewing all applications for an aquaculture licence. Draft: January 19,

39 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 If there are SAR in the area that may be impacted by the proposal, the following flow charts should be followed: Draft: January 19,

40 Application and Review Process: Stage 2 MNR is currently developing policies and procedures with respect to the issuance of permits, and interim guidance is provided on the MNR intranet site. MNR has set up a Species at Risk hotline and address to help address staff questions with regard to the ESA, 2007 and related policies and regulations. MNR staff can call or speciesatrisk@ontario.ca. Draft: January 19,