See Attached. We support the…

See Attached.

We support the government's proposed changes to the technical guides to streamline and update natural heritage assessment requirements for renewable energy projects to align with proposed changes to Ontario Regulation 359/09: Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (REA Regulation) (ERO number 025-1367). However, understanding specific details of any updates to the technical guidance is critical to providing regulatory certainty to industry and ensuring meaningful consultation and engagement with the impacted stakeholders.

The MNR proposed that amendments to the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (NHA Guide) will aim to simplify requirements to complete a natural heritage assessment; however, the proposal is high-level and lacks the clarity needed to meaningfully engage with potentially impacted stakeholders. For example, key questions not answered by this proposal include the following:

1. The Proposal contemplates the use of “qualified persons” to prepare natural heritage assessments and reports. We note that the required studies, evaluations and reports are often multi-disciplinary (e.g. flora and fauna, water quality assessment, hydrogeology, habitat assessment, etc.). As such, it is likely that multiple qualified persons will need to be engaged; and therefore, the definition of a “qualified person” will need to be broad. Furthermore, any consistency with legislation such as the REA Regulation and the pending definition of “qualified professionals” in the newly proposed regulations under the Species Conservation Act (SCA) (ERO proposal posting #025-0909) have not been specified. Will there be a consistent definition for a “qualified person” or “qualified professional” for the purpose of conducting or preparing natural heritage related assessments, plans and reports?

2. The Proposal indicates that content from the current Bird and Bird Habitat and Bat and Bat Habitat Guidelines would be incorporated into the amended NHA Guide and the bird and bat guidelines would be rescinded. As a result, it is proposed that the NHA Guide will contain a simplified protocol with no monitoring requirements for applicants who avoid key habitats and implement known effective mitigation strategies to reduce mortality risks and potential displacement impacts to birds and bats. What are the acceptable mitigation strategies proposed to reduce mortality risks and potential displacement impacts to birds and bats that will result in no [post-construction] monitoring requirements?

To the extent the MNR is considering requiring particular activities or industries to implement “effective mitigation strategies”, such strategies should be provided for consultation to assess their potential impact. For example, for wind energy generation facilities, the potential inclusion of a minimum cut-in speed would be concerning. Such an approach would be overly prescriptive and have negative impacts on wind energy production and electricity reliability in Ontario (including by reducing the number of wind power projects that are economically competitive in Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) procurements and eroding investor confidence in the province).

3. Regulatory guidance for birds, bats and wind power is of significant interest, both in terms of understanding assessment, monitoring and reporting requirements, and to minimizing impacts to energy production. Much has been learned in Ontario and across Canada since the MNR first developed the bird and bat technical guidance and regulatory direction for the REA Regulation in 2010. For example, since that time:
• It has been demonstrated that wind power is not a risk factor for bird species, populations and migratory activity in Ontario including the full range of raptor species.
• Evidence has shown that raptor mortality has most often been associated with Turkey Vultures, a species whose range and population continues to grow in Ontario despite wind power development and whose mortality associated with wind power is not predictable or mitigatable – thereby suggesting that Turkey Vultures should not be considered in any amended bird/raptor mortality threshold.
• Long term cause and effect monitoring can be expensive and inconclusive for relatively low levels of bird mortality and consideration should be given to a broader range of alternative mitigation and adaptive management strategies beyond the limited turbine curtailment provisions prescribed in the Bird Guide for Wind Power (MNR 2011).
• Most bat species have now been listed under the SCA and regulatory authority has largely been assumed by MECP through the SCA.
• The decline in bat populations across Ontario and their subsequent SCA listing has generally been associated with habitat loss, climate change and White-Nosed Syndrome and not wind power facility operations.
As such and while we are generally supportive of the proposal to update direction in the NHA Guide regarding birds, bats and wind power, the Proposal is too vague for us to provide any endorsement of the proposed changes at this time.

4. The Proposal identified that updates to specific requirements (e.g., setbacks, monitoring protocols) that reflect new information will be made to the NHA Guide. What specific changes are proposed to setbacks and monitoring protocols, etc.?
To the extent the MNR is considering updates to setback and monitoring protocols, these protocols should be provided for consultation to assess their potential impact. For example, for wind energy generation facilities, protocols for effectiveness monitoring should allow for systematic, iterative approach to environmental decision‑making.

5. How will the NHA Guide and MNR’s roles and responsibilities to issue other permits and approvals under various pieces of legislation including the Public Lands Act, Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, and Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act be contemplated?

6. Finally, for any natural heritage related matters that may arise at an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) hearing for a proposed project subject to the REA Regulation, will the MNR as the ministry responsible for the NHA Guide and its prescribed standards, guidance and information sources be a party to the ERT hearing upon request, to provide evidence as to the NHA Guide and how project compliance with the NHA Guide addresses the natural heritage requirements?
It would be ideal if the above role for MNR is described in the amended NHA Guide, to provide clarity to proponents, communities, other stakeholders and the public.

Regarding this Proposal and other related MNR and Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP) proposals to streamline and improve regulatory administration and approvals, time is of the essence given concurrent energy procurement programs underway by Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), as well as considerations associated with repowering existing renewable energy assets and the opportunity for direct clean energy supply arrangements with industrial users. For example, it is anticipated that the IESO will award numerous energy procurement contracts in April 2026 via the first round of its Long Term 2 RFP. The preparation and consideration of natural heritage assessments and bird/bat environmental effects monitoring plans represents a significant part of the renewable energy approval process.

Given the significance of the NHA Guide to the future clean energy projects, we respectfully encourage the MNR to provide further opportunities for engagement prior to the NHA Guide being amended. It would also be ideal to involve MECP staff in this engagement given their concurrent proposals.