Developing guidance on…

Developing guidance on section 16 activities under the Species Conservation Act, 2025 (#025-0908)
Stantec understands MECP is proposing guidance materials to assist in assessing whether an activity is likely to have an impact to a protected species or species’ habitat such that a registration or permit would be required under the Species Conservation Act (SCA). Stantec would like to provide the following input and recommendations to be considered in the development of the guidance materials. Comments have been organized into the suggested categories from the ERO posting.

General Comments:
- It is our understanding that the new SCA will be largely proponent driven, with less consultation or touch points on a given project with MECP Species at Risk Branch staff. As such, we would request clear guidelines from MECP on field survey protocols, habitat definitions and assessment of impacts to species and their habitats.
o Clear guidance is needed to allow consultants to make assessments that align with MECP expectations and interpretation of policy, reducing the risk of inadvertently contravening the SCA due to difference in professional judgement between proponents and MECP.
o Clear guidance will also provide industry standards, allowing for consistent approach between different proponents and consultants.
- Based on the information provided to date, the MECP consultation process under the SCA is unclear (e.g., will there be an Information Gathering Form or similar). Guidance on the consultation process should be provided, as well as MECP’s expectations for when consultation should be undertaken.

Specific aspects of the previous policies and technical direction that you would suggest retaining, updating, or removing
- Field Survey Methods - for a number of species at risk (or groups of at risk species), there are currently published field survey protocols. Most of these are older document, published by MNR, with some being updated by MECP (e.g., bats), or endorsement of external guidance (e.g., Red-headed Woodpecker guidance from Wisconsin). We request clarification if the existing survey guidelines will remain in effect. We also request that more comprehensive survey protocol documents be provided where it is lacking (e.g. bats) and that new guidance be developed for species or groups where it is currently lacking (e.g., Five-lined Skink). Ideally, clear guidance is provided on field survey expectations for all species covered under the SCA.
- Habitat Definitions – previous guidance under the ESA were provided through Habitat Regulations, General Habitat Description (GHD) or habitat regulation recommendations in a species’ Recovery Strategy. These habitat definitions were provided on an individual species basis, although not all species under the ESA had a Habitat Regulation or GHD. Under the ESA, there definitions typically provided clear guidance on identification of a species habitat, including rational and supporting diagrams. It is recommended that guidance similar to a GHD be provided for each species covered under the SCA, which would assist in clarity and consistency in identifying SAR habitat.
- Assessing Impacts – Existing guidance such as Categorizing and Protecting Habitat under the Endangered Species Act (2012) provide guidance principals on assessing the level of impact to species at risk habitat. Recovery Strategies or GHDs can provide some guidance on types of activities that may damage or destroy habitat. However, more detailed guidance is required to allow proponents and consultants to make decisions that align with MECP’s expectations. For example, Stantec understands that current guidance from MECP is that a small number of trees may be cleared without damaging SAR bat habitat. However, submission of an IGF on a project by project basis is required for MECP to determine if the tree clearing associated with a given project will damage SAR bat habitat. If the SCA is moving towards a more proponent driven process, additional guidance will be required in order to make informed decisions in the absence of MECP consultation.
- Mitigation – It is recommended that clear guidance be provided on mitigation timing windows (e.g., bats active season, bat maternity season, turtles nesting season, turtle overwintering season). Please also provide clarity on whether different timing windows apply to different regions of the province, with mapping or geographical description of the associated regions.

Which components of the proposed guidance would be of greatest interest or value to you or your organization
- Guiding principles and considerations – while valuable to understand the overarching guiding principles, it is the detailed guidelines that will be most valuable, to assist proponents and consultants make informed decisions through the proponent drive process.
- Public sources of information about protected species locations – in the absence of MECP consultation on a project-by-project bases, access to species records (in particular occurrence of restricted species) would be required to assess impacts to species at risk and their habitats.
- Habitat Definitions - Information to support the identification and delineation of habitat as it is defined under the SCA would be very valuable to proponents and their consultants, allow them to make informed decisions. Such definitions could also have consideration for quality of different habitats.
- Assessing Impacts – Guidance on level of impact to trigger the need for a registration/permit under the SCA would be valuable.

Which species groups would most benefit from detailed habitat guidance
- Bats – Most of the at risk species of bats in Ontario are quite widespread across southern parts of the province, and regularly encountered during targeted surveys. Published guidance under the ESA (e.g., General Habitat Definition, officially published survey protocols) is generally lacking. Guidance documents on survey protocols, habitat definitions and assessment of impacts to habitat are required to allow proponents and their consultants to make informed decisions.
- Reptiles – Existing survey protocols exist for many reptiles (e.g., Blanding’s Turtle, Spotted Turtle, Snake Species at Risk – although the latter is focused heavily on Massasauga). Many of these species also have Regulated Habitat for GHD. It is recommended these guidance documents be retained, updated and expanded to include all reptiles covered under the SCA.