Draft Guidance for Assessing Impacts of Activities on Woodland Caribou and their Habitat

Ministère des Richesses naturelles Draft Guidance for Assessing Impacts of Activities on Woodland Caribou and their ontario.ca/speciesatrisk

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE... 3 2.0 LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT... 4 2.1 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 2007... 4 2.1.1 Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits... 5 2.1.2 Categorizing and Protecting under the Endangered Species Act... 5 2.2 OTHER LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS... 6 2.3 ONTARIO S WOODLAND CARIBOU CONSERVATION PLAN... 7 2.3.1 Range Management Policy in Support of Woodland Caribou Conservation and Recovery... 7 2.3.2 Caribou Screening Tool... 7 2.3.3 Best Management Practices... 8 3.0 ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ESA TO DETERMINE CONTRAVENTION OF S.9 OR S.10, AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CARIBOU AND CARIBOU HABITAT... 9 3.1 PRELIMINARY SCREENING... 10 5.1.1 Activity Scoping and Study Area Definition during Preliminary Screening... 12 5.1.2 Identification, Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives during Preliminary Screening.. 12 3.2 PHASE 1 INFORMATION GATHERING... 14 5.2.1 Impact Assessment for Caribou Species (ESA S. 9)... 14 5.2.2 Impact Assessment for Caribou (ESA S. 10)... 15 3.3 PHASE 2 ACTIVITY REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT, INCLUDING ASSESSMENT OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES... 20 3.4 PHASE 3 PERMIT APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT (C-PAF FOR CARIBOU)... 21 3.5 PHASES 4-6 PERMIT DRAFTING, PERMIT DECISION, AND PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION... 21 4.0 TOOLS AND INFORMATION SOURCES... 21 4.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY... 21 4.2 OTHER TOOLS AND INFORMATION SOURCES... 22 5.0 REFERENCES...24 1

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Area of continuous and discontinuous caribou distribution where this guide applies.... 4 Figure 2: Overall benefit permit flowchart outlining the six phased process for activity review and assessment, and overall benefit permitting under the ESA.10 2

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to proponents on the process and requirements for authorizations for woodland caribou (forest-dwelling boreal population), henceforth referred to as caribou and caribou habitat under clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 ( ESA ) (Government of Ontario, 2007). Caribou have unique biological and ecological requirements that require additional direction to proponents when assessing impacts to caribou and caribou habitat. This guide is intended to support existing ESA policies that provide guidance when assessments of impacts to species at risk are being conducted, and to ensure that the biological and ecological requirements of caribou are adequately addressed. This guide applies to both the continuous and discontinuous distributions of caribou, as identified in Ontario s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan Progress Report (MNR, 2012a) (Figure 1). This guide explains how proponents can: Conduct a preliminary screening for caribou and caribou habitat when planning and scoping activities; Gather detailed information to assist MNR in assessing whether an activity is likely to contravene Section 9 (species protection) or Section 10 (habitat protection) of the ESA for caribou or caribou habitat and whether it is advisable for a proponent to apply for an ESA authorization prior to proceeding with the activity; Apply BMPs to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to caribou and/or caribou habitat; Assess project alternatives which may avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to caribou or caribou habitat; Apply for a 17(2)(c) overall benefit permit for caribou; and, Provide required information for a complete submission package that will inform MNR s decision on issuance of an ESA authorization for caribou. This guide lists tools and information sources to support proponents during a preliminary screening when planning and scoping activities to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to caribou, as well as to support providing information to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in order to determine if activity is likely to contravene Section 9 or Section 10 of the ESA for caribou or caribou habitat. 3

Area of CCP Application: Continuous Distribution Forest-tundra woodland caribou (not at risk) Discontinuous Distribution Forest-dwelling woodland caribou (Threatened) 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Figure 1: Area of continuous and discontinuous caribou distribution where this guide applies. (MNR, 2012a). 2.0 LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 2.1 The Endangered Species Act, 2007 The purposes of the ESA are: - To identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and Aboriginal traditional knowledge; - To protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk; and, - To promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species that are at risk. If a species is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list (Ontario Regulation 230/08) (Government of Ontario, 2011) as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species, it receives protection under the ESA. Caribou are listed as a threatened species and receive both species and habitat protection under the ESA. Subsection 9(1) of the ESA states that: No person shall, 4

122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 (a) kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species; (b) possess, transport, collect, buy sell, lease, trade or offer to buy, sell, lease or trade, a living or dead member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species, any part of a living or dead member of a species referred to in sub clause (i), anything derived from a living or dead member of a species referred to in sub clause (i); or (c) sell, lease or trade or offer to sell, lease or trade anything that the person represents to be a thing described in sub clause (b)(i), (ii) or (iii). Clause 10(1)(a) of the ESA states that: No person shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as an endangered or threatened species. 2.1.1 Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits Provided the applicable legislated requirements in subsection 17(2) of the ESA are met, the Minister of Natural Resources may issue a permit to a person under subsection 17(1) of the Act that authorizes the person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by subsection 9(1) or 10(1) of the Act. MNR has developed the Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits policy ( Submission Standards Policy ) (MNR, 2012b) to assist proponents in understanding the processes involved in assessing activities for potential impacts to species at risk (SAR), assessing the need for overall benefit permits and developing overall benefit permits under clause 17(2)(c). The overall benefit concept, the guiding principles and legal requirements of overall benefit, and a detailed description of the general process for applying for an overall benefit permit are described in the Submission Standards Policy available on MNR s SAR website. The Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits policy applies to all SAR in Ontario; however, this guide provides specific guidance pertaining to how to complete the Submission Standards Policy process for caribou, including completion of Information Gathering Form (IGF), Avoidance Alternatives Form (AAF) and C Permit Application Form (C-PAF). 2.1.2 Categorizing and Protecting under the Endangered Species Act MNR has developed the Categorizing and Protecting under the Endangered Species Act policy ( Categorizing and Protecting Policy ) (MNR, 2012c) to outline the overall approach and considerations that MNR will use in determining whether a proposed activity is likely to damage or destroy habitat protected under subsection 10(1) of the ESA. 5

167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 This determination will be carried out primarily in the context of determining whether it is advisable for the proponent of a planned activity to apply for an authorization under the Act prior to proceeding with the activity. The Categorizing and Protecting Policy provides guidance on the terms damage and destroy within the context of subsection 10(1) of the act; identifies a set of principles and considerations MNR will consider in determining whether a proposed activity will damage or destroy habitat; and, explains how habitat protected under the ESA will be categorized based on the species anticipated tolerance to alteration. MNR has applied the Categorizing and Protecting Policy to categorize caribou habitat as described in the General Description for the Woodland Caribou (Forest-dwelling boreal population) (Rangifer tarandus caribou) (GHP description) (MNR, 2013a) and will use it to support assessing whether an activity will contravene the ESA through the damage or destruction of caribou habitat. 2.2 Other Legislative and Policy Considerations In addition to ESA requirements, permissions, approvals or authorizations may be required from landowners, or other agencies or levels of government, (e.g., a conservation authority, municipality, federal or provincial government, etc.) before an activity can be initiated. Other authorizations from MNR may be required for some activities (e.g., Wildlife Scientific Collectors Authorizations). To enhance coordination, proponents are encouraged to seek input from all relevant landowners and authorities early in the process to identify any requirements they may have. It is the proponent s responsibility to ensure that all other permissions, approvals, and authorizations are acquired prior to proceeding with the proposed activity. MNR will consider existing approved land use and resource management plans (e.g., for protected areas, enhanced management areas, forest management plans etc.) within or near the location of the activity when making decisions pertaining to activity approvals. If applicable, MNR will inform the proponent of any past decision-making pertaining to resource management and land use activities in these areas and requirements and rationale associated with past decisions Policies pertaining to the management of Crown lands will also be applied when reviewing activities. MNR will assess whether or not activities are consistent with direction provided in these land use and resource management plans and other policies, and will identify to proponents any conditions which must be met for the activity to proceed, in addition to any requirements of the Range Management Policy in Support of Woodland Caribou Conservation and Recovery (RMP) (MNR, 2013b) and ESA. MNR may identify that some activities may not be able to proceed if inconsistent with the direction contained in these land use and resource management plans and other 6

213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 policies. MNR should inform proponents of any requirements associated with these land use and resource management plans and other policies early in the activity planning process that affect their project, prior to assessments under the ESA. 2.3 Ontario s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan Ontario s Woodland Conservation Plan (CCP) (MNR, 2009a) was released in October 2009 as the government response statement to the Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou, forest-dwelling, boreal population) in Ontario (OWCRT, 2008 The CCP outlines broad policy direction regarding caribou conservation and recovery, and outlines and prioritizes the actions the Ontario government intends to take to conserve and recover caribou in Ontario. The goal of the CCP is, To maintain self-sustaining, geneticallyconnected local populations of Woodland Caribou (forest-dwelling boreal population) where they currently exist, improve security and connections among isolated mainland local populations, and facilitate the return of caribou to strategic areas near their current extent of occurrence (MNR, 2009a). 2.3.1 Range Management Policy in Support of Woodland Caribou Conservation and Recovery The Range Management Policy in Support of Woodland Caribou Conservation and Recovery (RMP) (MNR, 2013b) provides direction for implementing a Range Management Approach (RMA), as directed by the CCP. The Range Management Approach is designed to ensure the long-term persistence and recovery of caribou in Ontario by influencing and informing land use and resource management planning decisions. RMA includes range delineation, the assessment of range condition in an Integrated Range Assessment Report (IRAR) and decisions-making based on range condition and management of cumulative effects, as described in the RMP. Caribou ranges set the spatial and ecological context for planning and management decisions that consider all factors that directly or indirectly influence the well-being of caribou, including the management of cumulative effects. Caribou habitat is managed through the application of decision-making supported by the RMP, and will be implemented by MNR across all sectors and activities. For additional information about the Range Management Approach and range level decision-making, please refer to the RMP. 2.3.2 Caribou Screening Tool The Range Management Approach is the key decision-making framework for caribou conservation in broader resource use and management planning. An important component of the Range Management Approach is the management of cumulative effects. As directed by CCP Section 3.7.1, Ontario has developed the Caribou Screening Tool (CST) to support assessing the cumulative impacts of development proposals within the continuous distribution of caribou. CST is a computer-based decision-support tool MNR will use to track cumulative disturbance on the landscape over time, to support the assessment of potential impacts to caribou habitat at a range level, and to support decision-making as directed by the RMP. 7

260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 Guidance for Assessing Impacts of Activities on Woodland Caribou and their CST provides range-level statistics related to amount of disturbance and habitat amount and arrangement, as well as proposal specific caribou statistics (e.g., winter observations, distance to nursery areas, etc.). CST can be used to inform coarse scoping and analysis of alternatives, as required as part of planning processes (e.g., environmental assessment), as well as the Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits(MNR, 2012b) policy. MNR will enter activities into CST provided they are occurring in the continuous distribution of caribou and meet the following criteria: Proposed activity occurs on private or Crown land within a delineated Caribou Range; Proposed activity occurs on private or Crown land in a range with a completed IRA; Proposed activity will remove forest cover (permanent or temporary); Proposed activity adds additional permanent and/or temporary disturbance beyond the boundaries of an existing disturbance; Proposed activity changes the permanency of a feature; and, Any proposed activity that meets the above criteria and occurs up to 500 meters outside the boundary of a range. 2.3.3 Best Management Practices As directed by Section 7.2 of the CCP, MNR has developed a series of sector-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) (MNR, 2013c) to increase awareness of caribou ecology and conservation practices and to help sectors avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts of activities on caribou and caribou habitat. BMPs have been developed for the Renewable energy, Energy Infrastructure and Energy Transmission, Mineral Exploration and Development, Tourism, and Aggregate sectors and are available on MNR s website. BMPs describe techniques, methods or processes that when applied to an activity can help to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative impacts, and reduce threats to caribou and/or caribou habitat associated with the activity. BMPs are intended to be used during all phases of the project life-cycle including planning, design, impact assessment, construction, operation, maintenance and rehabilitation, and closure/decommissioning. As part of the information gathering process of the Submission Standards Policy, proponents should describe BMPs they plan to apply during all stages of their activity to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to caribou and caribou habitat. BMPs can also be used to assist in the development and assessment of reasonable alternatives for activities. Specific information about how and when proponents can employ caribou BMPs during the Submission Standards Policy process can be found below. Even with the application of BMPs, some activities may still result in a contravention of the ESA, and will require an authorization under the ESA prior to commencing the activity. The application of BMPs to minimize and mitigate impacts will lessen impacts associated with the activity, and therefore the test for overall benefit will be lower than without the application of BMPs. 8

307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 3.0 ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ESA TO DETERMINE CONTRAVENTION OF S.9 OR S.10, AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES AND PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CARIBOU AND CARIBOU HABITAT Caribou receive both species protection under Section 9 and habitat protection under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, 2007. All activities occurring in the continuous and discontinuous distributions of caribou must undergo an assessment under the ESA to determine if the activity is likely to kill, harm or harass caribou or damage or destroy their habitat. If MNR determines a contravention of the ESA is likely to occur for caribou or caribou habitat, and proponents are unable to avoid the contravention, an overall benefit permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA may be required prior to conducting the activity. MNR has developed the Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits (Submission Standards Policy) (MNR, 2012b), and associated forms, which outline the process for proponents to gather detailed information to inform MNR s assessment of ESA contraventions and determination of whether an ESA authorization is required; to apply for an overall benefit permit; and, provide required information for a complete submission which will inform MNR s decision on the issuance of the permit. Figure 2 provides a summary of the six-phased process for activity review and assessment and achieving overall benefit under the ESA for all species at risk, including caribou. The Submission Standards Policy process applies to all SAR; however, this guide provides guidance specific to caribou and caribou habitat to support the Submission Standards Policy process. 9

334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 Figure 2: Overall benefit permit flowchart outlining the six phased process for activity review and assessment, and overall benefit permitting under the ESA (MNR 2012b). 3.1 Preliminary Screening A detailed description of the preliminary screening phase and proponent responsibilities during this phase is found in the Submission Standards Policy (MNR, 2012b). This guide is meant to provide further direction for proponents to provide a complete submission 10

344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 package that will inform MNR s decision on the issuance of an ESA authorization for caribou. Proponents who wish to conduct activities within the area of continuous or discontinuous distribution of caribou are strongly encouraged to contact their local MNR office as early in the planning process as possible in order to ensure that caribou and caribou habitat values are adequately considered when scoping and planning the activity. If caribou and caribou habitat are adequately considered from the outset of the planning process, potential impacts can be identified early on and BMPs can be applied to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts, eliminating the need for additional permitting under the ESA or reducing the overall benefit test the proponent must demonstrate if an ESA 17(2)(c) permit is required for the activity. When scoping and planning activities, proponents are encouraged to consider how to apply BMPs to avoid impacts at the range level and to sub-range habitat features, or to minimize or mitigate potential impacts if avoidance is not feasible. During the preliminary screening, MNR shares available knowledge on caribou or caribou habitat at or near the location of the proposed activities and identifies any immediate known concerns to proponents. Proponents are encouraged to maintain regular contact with MNR to ensure relevant and up-to-date information is used, and to discuss activity alternatives that may avoid impacts to caribou and caribou habitat. MNR will enter a digital shapefile of the proposed activity into CST. MNR will use outputs from the tool to assess potential range-level impacts, as well as the condition of the range and management recommendations as outlined in the Integrated Range Assessment Report (IRAR) for the range, to inform decision-making as per the RMP. During the preliminary screening, MNR will inform the proponent of any requirements related to range-level decision-making. This information should be used to help scope activity alternatives prior to selecting a preferred activity alternative to move forward. MNR can provide the proponent with tools and information sources specific to the landscape in which they are working, which will inform the scoping and planning of activities during the preliminary screening, as well as inform the ESA assessment process. This guide provides general direction and information sources which can be used by proponents. Specific information available for each activity location will vary, and some information sources identified in this document may or may not be applicable. MNR district offices may be able to identify and provide additional information that improves understanding of caribou and caribou habitat at or near the proposed activity location and at the range/landscape level. District offices can also assist by providing context and interpretation of tools and information sources. 11

388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 Tools and information sources to be used when scoping and planning activities, and when completing the requirements of the Submission Standards Policy process can be found in Section 4 of this guide. 3.1.1 Activity Scoping and Study Area Definition during Preliminary Screening When scoping the feasibility of the activity, and when defining the study area for assessing the impacts of the activity, the proponent should consider impacts at a landscape scale. Integrated Range Assessment Reports (IRARs) for individual caribou ranges provide background information and landscape context, range condition and management recommendations and could be used by proponents when defining and describing their study area. The proponent can also refer to the Cervid Ecological Framework (CEF) (MNR, 2009b) to gather information and context about cervid management objectives for the area in which the activity is proposed. To assist in the scoping environmental study requirements, MNR can use information in the Species Search Area data layer found in Land Information Ontario (LIO) Warehouse (2012), and other local information to identify areas where caribou surveys have not taken place, or where additional information/survey data at or near the proposed activity location is required to support a complete an ESA permit application. As part of their project description and study area identification, the proponent should consider the timing of various stages of the activity relative to times when caribou are known to be more sensitive, and consider altering timing of activity components to reduce likelihood of impacting caribou. Proponents should describe how caribou are known to use the landscape currently, as well as how the landscape is being managed to provide caribou habitat in the future. The proponent should describe the lifespan and permanency of their activity on the landscape relative to how caribou use the landscape currently and in the future. 3.1.2 Identification, Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives during Preliminary Screening Many planning processes (e.g., environmental assessment) involve the identification of multiple alternatives which will be evaluated and compared to determine feasibility of each option and to identify a preferred option. Caribou and caribou habitat should be considered when identifying and scoping these alternatives. Alternatives identified should be at a spatial scale that is relevant to caribou and for large scale projects should include landscape level alternatives rather than minor changes to the location of activities. IRARs and the GHP description (MNR 2013a) may inform the development of constraint maps by identifying important features on the landscape, areas of known caribou use or to inform coarse scoping of important habitat features. Each identified alternative can be entered into CST by MNR as an expression of interest (EOI) and individual reports will be generated for each alternative. Proponents can then use the information generated from CST reports during the identification of alternatives, 12

433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 and to evaluate and compare individual alternatives. The following paragraphs describe specifically how that information can be used. Proponents can refer to the proposal specific statistics, and detail sheet contained in CST, to determine if their proposed activities overlap with other proposals. When planning activities, proponents can consider opportunities to align their activities with other proposed activities to reduce the overall anthropogenic disturbance at the range level. In order for a proponent to address range level impacts, the proponent can refer to the range level statistics in CST reports to assess and compare how each activity alternative changes the cumulative disturbance footprint within the range. The proponent should consider the relationship between the level of range disturbance, and the probability of observing stable or positive growth of caribou populations over time (Environment Canada, 2011). To minimize impacts at the range level, proponents should consider a preferred alternative that minimize cumulative disturbance by aligning activities within existing permanent disturbances, or by reducing the overall size of a development. The proponent can use habitat statistics related to winter, and refuge habitat CST reports, to assess and compare how each activity alternative changes the amount of suitable winter and refuge habitat at the range level. Activity alternatives which manage habitat amount within the range by minimizing winter and refuge habitat loss by planning activities within existing permanent disturbances, and reducing activity footprint size, would generally be considered a preferred alternative for minimizing impacts to caribou habitat at the range level. The proponent can use range specific habitat statistics related to young forest, and permanent disturbance generated by CST, to assess and compare how each activity alternative will change the amount of young forest and permanent disturbance at the range level. Generally, preferred activity alternatives for caribou and caribou habitat would be those that minimize the conversion of habitat to young forest conditions, and which minimize the amount of new permanent disturbance on the landscape by planning activities within existing permanent disturbances and minimizing activity footprint size. The proponent can use proposal specific caribou statistics contained in CST (e.g., winter observations, proximity to nursery areas and nursery area points, and proximity to high potential lakes for calving) to determine the number of winter observations, nursery areas and high potential lakes for calving which occur within 10, 20, and 50 km of each proposed alternative, and to determine the distance to the closest feature for each alternative. Generally, preferred alternatives for caribou and caribou habitat would be those which avoid these sub-range habitat features and are conducted outside of times when caribou use certain sub-range habitat features, as described in the GHP description. Proponents can also conduct a coarse scoping of alternatives using mapping of capable areas available in the Caribou Science and Information Package (Elkie et al., 2011). Capable areas are generally soil or landform types conducive to perpetuating conifer dominated forest which will provide Seasonal Range habitat in the future. Locating activities in areas which do not have soil or landform types conducive to perpetuating 13

480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 conifer dominated forests would generally be a preferred alternative for minimizing impacts to caribou or caribou habitat. The coarse level analysis described above can be used to narrow down activity alternatives to preferred alternative(s) that are more likely to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to caribou or caribou habitat. However, the preferred alternative identified by the proponent may still have impacts which were not identified during the coarse level analysis. Additional detailed analysis will be required to determine if the preferred alternative will contravene Section 9 or Section 10 of the ESA for caribou and caribou habitat. 3.2 Phase 1 Information Gathering The purpose of this phase of the Submission Standards Policy process, specific to caribou, is for proponents to gather the required information to submit to MNR to inform the Ministry s assessments regarding: Whether caribou or caribou habitat is present at or near the location of the proposed activity: The determination of potential effects of the activity on caribou or caribou habitat and whether the activity is likely to contravene subsection 9 or 10 of the ESA; and, Whether it is advisable for the proponent to apply for an overall benefit permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA prior to proceeding with the activity. This information is submitted to MNR using the Information Gathering Form (IGF), part of the Submission Standards Policy package. Assessment for caribou will include an assessment of both spatial and temporal impacts to caribou and caribou habitat. For detailed discussion of Phase 1, please refer to the Submission Standards Policy and the IGF guidelines. 3.2.1 Impact Assessment for Caribou Species (ESA S. 9) Activities may adversely change physiological process(es) of caribou or disrupt normal behaviour(s) of caribou in a manner which adversely affects the ability of a member of the species to carry out one or more of its life processes. These adverse effects can be caused by sensory disturbances including light, sound and vibrations. Caribou may exhibit avoidance of sub-range habitat features (identified and described in the GHP description) due to sensory disturbance from activities, which may adversely affect their ability to perform one or more of their life processes. Managing noise, light, vibration and other sensory disturbance will minimize the risk of impairing caribou use, movement and distribution across the range and between subrange habitat features, and will minimize impacts associated with reduced use of important sub-range habitat features. Activities may cause the direct death of caribou (e.g., through vehicular collisions) or indirect death of caribou (e.g., through increased predation or increases in alternate prey sources). Caribou population size and trends can be directly negatively affected by the death of individual members of the species caused by impacts associated with activities, 14

526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 including vehicular and train collisions, increased human access to remote areas and increased predation. Caribou are likely to be more sensitive to activities occurring during certain times of the year including the calving and nursery period (May 1 to Sept 15), when migrating (April and November) and when occupying winter use areas (December 1 to March 31). During certain periods, caribou may be more sensitive to activities occurring within certain distances and may avoid areas if activity is occurring nearby. Caribou are more sensitive to activities occurring within 10 kilometres (Carr et al., 2011) of certain known or potential high use areas, including calving sites and nursery areas, and winter use areas. Information sources listed in Section 4 of this guide, as well as any additional information provided by MNR, can be referenced by proponents when completing the IGF in order to determine the location of species in relation to the proposed activity, and to provide their interpretation of how the activity may impact caribou. MNR can use this information when reviewing the IGF and assessing the activity for ESA Section 9 contraventions. When proponents are providing their interpretation of how the activity may impact caribou, they should quantitatively and qualitatively describe how caribou may be affected by sensory disturbance and direct mortality caused as a result of the project. Proponents should describe times of year when they will be conducting their activities relative to when caribou are known to be more sensitive to sensory disturbance and direct mortality. Proponents should also describe where their activity is proposed to occur in relation to known or potential high use areas, as described in the GHP description. The interpretation should include a description of how the activity may increase human access to the activity area, as well as how indirect death of caribou may result through potential increases in predator and alternate prey densities. The proponent should also include a description of how physiological processes and behaviour which support life processes may be adversely affected by their activity. Proponents should describe any BMPs they plan to apply in order to avoid, minimize or mitigate anticipated negative impacts. On a case-by-case basis, MNR will consider the activity details (including activity timing and duration, proximity to species, intensity, permanency, persistence of residual effects) and the specific biological and physiological requirements and behaviours of caribou when determining if an activity is likely to kill, harm or harass caribou and whether it is advisable for a proponent to apply for an overall benefit permit prior to commencing their activity. 3.2.2 Impact Assessment for Caribou (ESA S. 10)The General Description for the Woodland Caribou (Forest-dwelling boreal population) (Rangifer 15

572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 tarandus caribou) (GHP description) (MNR 2013a) provides a detailed description of habitat features and functions which caribou require to persist on the landscape, including high use areas (e.g., nursery areas including calving sites, winter habitat areas, travel corridors), Seasonal Ranges and Remaining Areas of the Range. The GHP description also categorizes each of these habitat features based on level of tolerance to alteration following direction provided in the policy Categorizing and Protecting under the Endangered Species Act (MNR 2012b). During Phase 1 of the Submission Standards Policy process, proponents must determine and describe the location of each of these habitat features in relation to their activity, and provide their interpretation of impacts that the activity is likely to have on each habitat feature. High Use Areas As described in GHP, high use areas include nursery areas, including calving sites, winter use areas and travel corridors and have been categorized as Category 1 habitat features, indicating that they are highly sensitive habitat areas which are anticipated to have the lowest tolerance to alteration before the function (usefulness) to supporting one or more of the life functions of caribou is eliminated or impaired. High use areas can be affected by habitat alteration of the high use area or of the Seasonal Ranges and Remaining Areas of the Range which surround the high use area, if connectivity between other high use areas and seasonal ranges is altered, if forage value is reduced or eliminated, or if there are increases in predators (e.g., wolves, bears) or alternate prey (e.g., moose, deer) at or near the high use area. Information sources listed in Section 4 of this guide, as well as any additional information provided by MNR, can be used by proponents when completing the IGF to determine caribou use during specific times of the year associated with high use areas, to determine the location of high use areas in relation to the proposed activity and to provide their interpretation of how the activity may impact high use areas across spatial and temporal scales. Proponents should provide their interpretation of effects the activity will have on each type of high use area. The interpretation must consider how the activity will affect high use areas over time. MNR can use this information when reviewing the IGF and assessing the activity for ESA Section 10 contraventions related to high use areas. The interpretation should include a quantitative and qualitative description of the effects of the activity on altering high use areas or seasonal ranges surrounding high use areas, including how habitat alteration may impair or eliminate the function (usefulness) of the high use areas for supporting one or more of the species life processes both as an immediate result of the activity and in the future. The proponent should describe how the current and future function, and use of high use areas by caribou, will be affected by the activity. Current and future implications for the function and use of seasonal ranges and 16

617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 the remaining areas of the range which surround the high use areas should also be included in the interpretation. The interpretation provided by the proponent should describe how the activity may impair or eliminate the function (usefulness) of the high use areas to support one or more of the species life processes by: Describing how the activity may change forest stand composition, structure or spatial arrangement, potentially creating or maintaining high diversity, browse-rich or early seral stage forests that may eliminate or impair the function (usefulness) of high use areas through a reduction or elimination of forage value and potential increase in alternative prey (e.g., deer or moose); Describing how the activity may affect recovery and habitat management objectives found in approved resource management and land use plans. This should include a quantitative and qualitative description of the effects of the activity on the current and future habitat objectives (i.e., maintaining pure conifer forest composition, maintaining forage (lichen) and maintaining nursery area functions) within each high use area; Describing how the activity may affect management recommendations in the IRARs; and, Describing how the activity may increase the actual or potential predator and activity in the vicinity of high use areas. Proponents should also describe any BMPs they plan to apply in order to avoid, minimize or mitigate anticipated negative impacts. Information gathered about the location of high use area habitat features located at or near the activity site, as well as the interpretation of activity effects on the high use area habitat features must be included with the submission of the IGF during Phase 1 of the Submission Standards Policy process. Seasonal Ranges Seasonal Ranges have been categorized as Category 2 habitat features, indicating that they are moderately sensitive habitat areas which are anticipated to have a moderate tolerance to alteration before the function or usefulness to supporting one or more of the life functions of caribou is eliminated or impaired. Seasonal Ranges may be affected by fragmentation, habitat conversion and changes to forest structure and composition resulting from activities. Seasonal Ranges may also be affected by changes in forest composition that result in increased suitability for predators (e.g., wolves, bears) and alternate prey species (e.g., moose, deer). Information sources listed in Section 4 of this guide, and any additional information provided by MNR, can be used by proponents when completing the IGF in order to: determine caribou occurrences during times associated with use of Seasonal Ranges, the location of Seasonal Ranges in relation to the proposed activity, and to provide their interpretation of how the activity may impact Seasonal Ranges across spatial and temporal scales. MNR can use this information when reviewing the IGF and assessing the activity for ESA Section 10 contraventions related to Seasonal Ranges. 17

663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 The interpretation provided by the proponent should describe how the activity may impair or eliminate the function (usefulness) of high use areas to support one or more of the species life processes by: Describing qualitatively and quantitatively the effects of the activity on fragmenting Seasonal Ranges, including describing how connectivity between high use areas using Seasonal Ranges may be impacted; Describe quantitatively and qualitatively how the activity may affect availability of biophysical features and forest composition (i.e., age class, patch size, spatial arrangement and species) required to sustain caribou in Seasonal Ranges and how the activity may reduce refuge or forage values within the Seasonal Ranges; Describe how the activity may affect recovery and habitat management objectives found in approved resource management plans and land use plans, including provision of a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the effects of the activity on current habitat objectives for the Seasonal Ranges (i.e., maintaining pure conifer composition within the area); Describing how the activity may affect management recommendations in the IRARs; Qualitatively describing how the activity will or will not result in the conversion of habitat to that which is more productive for alternate prey species (i.e., moose and deer) and predators (e.g., wolves, bears); Qualitatively describe impacts to caribou that may directly or indirectly result from habitat conversion and any changes to predator/alternate prey densities that may be seen; Describe the spatial arrangement of Seasonal Ranges, as well as high productivity habitat for alternate prey and describe how the activity will change this arrangement; Describe how the activity may contribute to enhanced predator efficiency or increased predator encounters within the Seasonal Ranges and how the activity may affect seasonal mortality or recruitment due to changes in predation pressure; and, Describe how the activity may result in conversion of habitat to early successional forest condition that may increase alternative prey in the Seasonal Ranges. Proponents should also describe any BMPs they plan to apply in order to avoid, minimize or mitigate anticipated negative impacts. Information gathered about the location of Seasonal Ranges relative to the activity, as well as the interpretation of activity effects on the Seasonal Ranges, must be included with the submission of the IGF during Phase 1 of the Submission Standards Policy process. Remaining Areas within the Range Remaining areas within the Range have been categorized as Category 3 habitat features, indicating they are areas which are anticipated to have a higher tolerance to alteration before the function or usefulness to supporting one or more of the life functions of caribou is eliminated or impaired. Generally, the management intent of these areas is that they will become Seasonal Ranges and High Use Areas over time if ecological processes associated with a natural disturbance driven boreal forest occur (i.e., if forest cover 18

709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 matures and connectivity with currently occupied Seasonal Ranges is maintained or restored). Remaining areas within the Range may be affected if forest cover composition and arrangement is altered over time, and if habitat management objectives are impacted. Information sources listed in Section 4 of this guide, as well as any additional information identified by MNR, can be used by proponents when completing the IGF to determine the location of Remaining Areas with the Range in relation to the proposed activity, and to provide their interpretation of how the activity may impact Remaining Areas within the Range across spatial and temporal scales. MNR can use this information when reviewing the IGF and assessing the activity for ESA Section 10 contraventions related to Remaining Areas within the Range. The interpretation provided by the proponent should describe how the activity may impair or eliminate the function (usefulness) of the Remaining Areas within the Range to support one or more of the species life processes by: Describing how the activity may diminish the area s potential to function as a Seasonal Range or High Use Area in the future, considering the duration of the activity and the permanency on the landscape, including: o Changes to physical features (e.g., bedrock outcrops, eskers) resulting in loss of areas for foraging or reproduction and rearing, o Changes to current age class, composition and distribution of forest cover resulting in loss of areas for foraging and changes to alternate prey and predator densities, o Fragmentation of the area resulting in loss of connectivity between adjacent existing Seasonal Ranges and High Use Areas, Referring to existing approved resource management and land-use plans describe how the activity may impact caribou recovery and habitat management objectives; and, Describing how the activity addresses management recommendations in the IRARs. Proponents should also describe any BMPs they plan to apply in order to avoid, minimize or mitigate anticipated negative impacts. Information gathered about the location of Remaining Areas within the Range relative to the activity site, as well as the interpretation of activity effects on Remaining Areas within the Range, must be included with the submission of the IGF during Phase 1 of the Submission Standards Policy process. On a case-by-case basis, MNR will consider the activity details (including footprint and location, indirect effects of the activity, immediate and delayed effects, duration/permanency, cumulative effects that may intensify effects of the proposed activity), and the specific habitat requirements of caribou at multiple scales when determining if an activity is likely to damage or destroy caribou habitat, and whether it is advisable for a proponent to apply for an overall benefit permit prior to commencing their activity. 19

755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 3.3 Phase 2 Activity Review and Assessment, including Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives During Phase 2 of the Submission Standards Policy process, MNR district staff will consider the information provided by the proponent in the completed IGF to: Determine whether any caribou or caribou habitat are present or near the proposed activity location; Assess and determine the potential effects of the activity on these protected species at risk and habitats and whether the activity is likely to contravene subsection 9(1) or 10(1) of the ESA; and, Determine whether it is advisable for the proponent to apply for an overall benefit permit under clause 17(2) (c) of the ESA prior to proceeding with the activity. To inform the assessment of ESA contraventions, MNR will consider information from the sources identified above, activity details and the proponent s interpretation of impacts provided through the submission of the IGF and guidance provided in the Categorizing and Protecting under the Endangered Species Act policy when assessing the activity and determining if a contravention under Section 9 or Section 10 of the ESA is likely. For additional information about MNR s activity review and assessment process, and the main principles considered when determining if habitat is likely to be damaged or destroyed, please refer to the Submission Standards Policy and the Categorizing and Protecting under the ESA policy. Once MNR has determined whether or not the proposed activity is likely to contravene subsection 9(1) or 10(1) of the ESA, the proponent will be notified of the activity review and assessment results. If MNR has determined that the proposed activity is not likely to contravene either subsection 9(1) or 10(1) of the ESA, the proponent may proceed with the activity without acquiring an authorization under the ESA, and will not need to proceed to the next step in the overall benefit permitting process. If MNR has determined that the proposed activity is likely to contravene subsection 9(1) or 10(1) of the ESA the proponent may either: Alter the activity in ways that will avoid the contravention(s); or, If avoidance is not reasonably possible, the proponent is advised to apply for an ESA authorization (e.g., an overall benefit permit) prior to proceeding with the activity. The proponent may be able to alter their activity to avoid ESA contraventions through the application of BMPs. Please refer to sector specific BMPs for additional detailed information. If proponents are able to apply BMPs to avoid impacts to caribou and caribou habitat, they will complete the Avoidance Alternatives Form (AAF) by outlining what BMPs they plan to use to avoid impacts to caribou and caribou habitat. MNR will assess the avoidance alternatives and notify the proponent if one or more of the proposed alternatives will avoid contravention of subsection 9(1) or 10(1) of the ESA. Should the proponent elect to proceed with MNR-approved avoidance alternatives that would 20