Generic requirements for Tailored Information and Studies Guidelines

July 2026 (interim version)

To prepare their Impact Statement, proponents must follow the requirements outlined in the project-specific Tailored Information and Studies Guidelines (TISG) issued by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC). In addition, the project-specific TISG require proponents to follow these Generic requirements for Tailored Information and Studies Guidelines unless otherwise indicated. The TISG were formerly called the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines.

Contents

• List of abbreviations and acronyms
• General information
• Engagement with Indigenous groups
  • Indigenous Knowledge considerations
  • Record of engagement
  • Analysis and response to questions, comments, and issues raised
• Public participation
  • Summary of public engagement activities
  • Analysis and response to questions, comments and issues raised
• Change to the project that may be caused by the environment
• Potential malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection to the project
• Assessment methodology
  • Spatial and temporal boundaries
  • Baseline conditions
  • Mitigation measures
  • Residual effects assessment
  • Cumulative effects assessment
  • Extent to which likely adverse federal effects are significant
  • Follow-up program
  • Uncertainty and bias
• Impact Statement Summary

List of abbreviations and acronyms

Declaration

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

GBA Plus

Gender Based Analysis Plus

IAAC

Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

IEPP

Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan

LSA

Local Study Area

PA

Project Area

RSA

Regional Study Area

SARA

Species at Risk Act

TISG

Tailored Information and Studies Guidelines

VC

Valued component

IAAC’s guidance on the practice of the Impact Assessment Act and its regulations is being updated, and the current versions of the guidance, referred to in this document, may not reflect IAAC’s current practices. Proponents remain responsible for following applicable legislation and regulations. Proponents are encouraged to engage with IAAC regarding the applicability of the guidance. For more information, please contact project-projet@iaac-aeic.gc.ca.

At the time of publishing, potential changes to the Impact Assessment Act are proposed by the Government of Canada in the Getting Major Project Built discussion paper. Should any changes be made relevant to this document, it will be updated.

General information

The Impact Statement must provide the following information:

• name(s) of the proponent(s) and, where applicable, of the legal entity(ies) that would develop, manage and operate the project;
• contact information for proponent representatives for the project (e.g. name, address, phone, email);
• overview of corporate structure, including roles and responsibilities of key personnel;
• information on individuals that have prepared the information or studies and their qualification as demonstrated by formal education, training or certification, experience, or credibility or community recognition as Indigenous Knowledge holders. Where possible, the proponent should use experts who are members of a professional body or recognized association. Indigenous Knowledge holders should be identified in accordance with any community-specific engagement protocols and procedures;
• information on how it ensured scientific integrity in the preparation of the Impact Statement, including by following existing standards and best practices for the responsible conduct of scientific research as well as by declaring and managing any real or perceived conflict of interest for individuals involved in preparing the Impact Statement; and
• if an Indigenous group has agreed to the proponent describing or summarizing Indigenous Knowledge in the Impact Statement, information on how the Indigenous Knowledge described by proponents has been validated by the Indigenous community.

The Impact Statement must identify the regulatory framework relevant to the project such as:

• any federal decision that would permit the carrying out – in whole or in part – of the project, including any financial support that federal authorities are, or may be, providing to the project;
• legislative or regulatory requirements – including related to Indigenous consultations and public engagement – that are applicable to the project at the federal, provincial, regional and municipal levels or from any body, including a co-management body, established under a land claim agreement referred to in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, or from an Indigenous governing body;
• government policies, resource management plans, planning or study initiatives relevant to the project and/or its impact assessment, including regional or strategic assessments, and their implications;
• treaty, self-government, land claims or other agreements between federal or provincial governments and Indigenous groups that are pertinent to the project and/or its impact assessment;
• relevant land use plans, land zoning, or community plans;
• information on land lease agreement or land tenure, when applicable; and
• municipal, regional, provincial and/or national objectives, standards or guidelines, by-laws or ordinances that have been used by the proponent to assist in the assessment of effects on VCs.

The Impact Statement must demonstrate that relevant ethical guidelines and cultural protocols governing data collection and confidentiality have been followed such as:

• to protect personal information, including for disaggregated data from small or unique populations; and
• established standards for the management of Indigenous data or standards adopted by an Indigenous group, including obtaining permission from Indigenous groups before including information from or about them.

In terms of format and accessibility, the Impact Statement must:

• summarize the documents that served as key references and are not otherwise publicly accessible, and, where possible, append them to the Impact Statement; and
• include all information in a machine-readable, accessible format. Where information is provided as a map in the Impact Statement, the proponent must provide corresponding electronic geospatial data file(s). IAAC will make the geospatial data files available to the public under the terms of the Open Government Licence – Canada. Geospatial data files must follow IAAC’s Guidance on submitting geospatial data. In addition, the proponent should be prepared to provide data on request, including surveys, analyses, methods, modelling, and results in well-documented data files, including geoenabled format where available.

Engagement with Indigenous groups

The proponent must engage with Indigenous Peoples early and throughout the impact assessment process to understand potential impacts of the project on Indigenous Peoples and their rights, including cumulative effects, and to incorporate Indigenous Knowledge. Engagement must be carried out in good faith in a manner that is attentive to the concerns of Indigenous Peoples, committed to producing mutually beneficial outcomes and recognizing the wide diversity of Indigenous Peoples. The project should be designed to minimize adverse effects and to maximize positive impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights.

The proponent’s engagement efforts should be consistent with the Government of Canada’s commitment to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration) as a comprehensive international human rights instrument and Canada’s roadmap for reconciliation. The Declaration emphasizes the importance of recognizing and upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and ensuring that there is effective and meaningful participation of Indigenous groups in decisions that affect them, their communities and territories. The Declaration also emphasizes the need to work together in partnership and respect, as articulated through the principle of free, prior and informed consent. This principle reflects working together in good faith on decisions that impact Indigenous Peoples, with the intention to achieve consensus.

Engagement should also be consistent with jurisprudence and best practices in respect of implementing the common law duty to consult. The Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan (IEPP) identifies Indigenous groups that the Crown will consult with to understand the concerns and potential impacts of the project on their exercise of potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights and, where appropriate, make accommodations. The degree of engagement with each community will vary and in general, will be proportionate to the evidence provided by Indigenous groups regarding potential pathways of impact from the project on Aboriginal or Treaty rights. Engagement is also conducted for other purposes, including as an opportunity to learn about and further explore Indigenous groups’ interests in a project, or to understand other potential project effects not directly related to the exercise of Aboriginal or Treaty rights.

Engagement with Indigenous groups must involve ongoing information sharing and collaboration between the proponent and Indigenous groups to contribute to the development and validation of conclusions and assessment findings related to potential impacts and effect pathways to Indigenous Peoples and impacts on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The results of any engagement with each Indigenous group must be presented in the Impact Statement, and, as best as possible, convey the perspective of the Indigenous groups being engaged. The record of engagement and inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge in the Impact Statement should demonstrate that the proponent sought to build consensus and obtained the agreement from specific Indigenous groups regarding information specifically pertaining to those Indigenous groups that is presented in the Impact Statement.

The proponent must:

• engage with Indigenous groups identified in the IEPP. The proponent’s level of engagement with each Indigenous group may differ depending on the severity of impacts on the Indigenous group and their rights. Determination of the proponent’s level of engagement and the corresponding opportunities offered to each impacted Indigenous group as part of the impact assessment process should be determined through discussion with Indigenous groups;

Share information

• share project information with Indigenous groups early, frequently, and transparently. Information should be shared in formats requested by the groups to ensure it is accessible and understandable;
• if groups decline participation or do not respond, continue sharing information unless requested otherwise;

Collaborate

• collaborate with Indigenous groups in completing the Impact Statement;
• engage with Indigenous groups to understand and discuss perspectives and seek agreement on the nature of impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights;
• seek input from Indigenous groups on criteria and benchmarks for describing those impacts;
• engage with Indigenous groups to identify appropriate ways to address or mitigate those impacts;
• foster meaningful dialogue with the full participation of diverse population groups (e.g. Elders, women, youth, gender diverse and two-spirit peoples) to ensure that Gender-based analysis Plus (GBA Plus) is integrated into the assessment process and to identify strategies that mitigate adverse impacts and expand benefits to diverse populations groups;

Report

• present the results of engagement with each Indigenous group in the Impact Statement, and convey their perspectives;

Validate

• ensure Indigenous groups have the opportunity to review and comment on information, and incorporate their comments in the Impact Statement; and

Support

• support the participation of Indigenous groups in the preparation of the Impact Statement. This support could include funding for studies conducted by impacted Indigenous groups.

IAAC notes that not all Indigenous groups may be willing to collaborate with the proponent, therefore the proponent must demonstrate that they have made best efforts at collaboration, and provide IAAC with an explanation regarding circumstances where collaboration was not possible. The proponent should continue to share information and analyses with the Indigenous groups, to use publicly available sources of information to support the assessment, and to document their efforts in that respect.

Indigenous Knowledge considerations

Indigenous Knowledge is holistic and should be brought together on equitable footing with scientific or technical information. Indigenous Knowledge should be collected and conveyed in a culturally appropriate manner that follows Indigenous methodology and captures the context in which it was provided, and informs all aspects of the impact assessment. Indigenous Peoples have ownership of their Indigenous Knowledge.

The Government of Canada recognizes that Indigenous Peoples refer to their knowledge in different ways, characteristic of their unique languages. Within the context of the TISG, the term Indigenous Knowledge is used to refer to all Indigenous ways of knowing. The proponent is encouraged to respect the terminology preferences of the Indigenous groups involved in the assessment.

Proponents must align with IAAC’s guidance document Indigenous Knowledge under the Impact Assessment Act: Procedures for Working with Indigenous Communities. Indigenous Knowledge should be incorporated throughout the Impact Statement, including in group-specific sections and wherever Indigenous Knowledge has informed the assessment of VCs. Where Indigenous Knowledge is provided, the Impact Statement must:

• reflect that community-specific engagement protocols and procedures around Indigenous Knowledge in assessment processes are understood, respected and implemented;
• indicate where Indigenous Knowledge has been incorporated and how it was considered. Information should be specific to the individual Indigenous group(s) involved in the assessment and describe contextual information about the members within an Indigenous group (e.g. women, men, two-spirit peoples, Elders and youth); and
• indicate where Indigenous Knowledge that was provided was not included in the assessment and provide a rationale. Where findings differ between Indigenous Knowledge and scientific or technical studies, the proponent must clearly present how both were considered in the Impact Statement.

Indigenous Knowledge provided in confidence must be protected in alignment with IAAC’s guidance on Protecting Confidential Indigenous Knowledge under the Impact Assessment Act.

Record of engagement

The Impact Statement must provide a record of engagement that describes the proponent’s efforts to seek the views of each impacted Indigenous group, including:

Who was engaged

• the list of Indigenous groups with whom the proponent engaged or attempted to engage, with a description of engagement activities and efforts with each group, including dates, means and results;
• the list of Indigenous groups who wished to be engaged but were not engaged, with reasons for the omission;
• details of efforts to engage diverse population groups in culturally appropriate ways to support the collection of information needed for the GBA Plus;

How Indigenous groups were engaged

• the perspectives of each Indigenous group about how they wish to be engaged and how those perspectives informed engagement;
• a description of how information was communicated with each group based on preferred methods for receiving information and any solutions implemented for people and locations where technological resources are limited or language barriers exist (e.g. translation of documents or summaries in Indigenous languages);
• a description of how the capacity needs of Indigenous groups were considered and timelines adequately communicated to ensure Indigenous groups had the ability to gain understanding of, and contribute to, information in the Impact Statement;
• a description of the proponent’s progress in seeking free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous groups, as identified by the Indigenous groups themselves, where Indigenous groups have agreed to include this information in the Impact Statement;
• a description of how Indigenous groups were provided an opportunity to evaluate the project’s adverse impacts on their members, communities, activities and rights, as identified by them;

Validation

• a description of how Indigenous groups reviewed draft sections of the Impact Statement, how the proponent sought to build consensus about the information contained in the Impact Statement, and how any disagreements were addressed;

Policies and protocols

• any agreements pertaining to engagement;
• the proponent’s Indigenous engagement policies related to the collection of Indigenous Knowledge and traditional land use information;
• where applicable, a copy of each group-specific engagement plan developed collaboratively by the Indigenous group and the proponent, or a rationale for using a single plan;
• the list of consultation or engagement protocols adopted by each Indigenous group, with written copies, if available;

Studies and expertise

• where applicable, a description of Indigenous-led studies or assessments provided to the proponent and a summary of their scope, objectives and timelines; and
• any proponent plans and commitments to continue to work with, and seek the knowledge and expertise of, Indigenous Peoples throughout the lifecycle of the project, should the project proceed.

Analysis and response to questions, comments, and issues raised

The proponent is encouraged to work with Indigenous groups who demonstrate an interest in drafting sections of the Impact Statement that concern them. Where applicable, sections of the Impact Statement prepared by Indigenous groups must be clearly identified. Where the proponent’s conclusions are different from those of Indigenous groups, it must be clearly documented with a rationale.

The proponent must:

• detail the main questions, comments and issues raised by each Indigenous group during engagement activities, and describe the proponent’s responses, including how matters have been addressed in the Impact Statement or will be addressed in the future;
• indicate where and how Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, perspectives and values were considered and contributed to decisions regarding the project or its assessment;
• consider and incorporate spiritual practices, cultural beliefs, laws and norms in the assessment, including whether the project would be inconsistent with Indigenous laws and norms; and
• describe the type of information received from Indigenous groups (e.g. Indigenous Knowledge, data).

Public participation

The proponent must engage with the public (e.g. local communities, stakeholders). Engagement activities should be inclusive and ensure that interested members of the public have an opportunity to share their views, with a particular attention to individuals and communities affected by the project, and consideration for the official language needs of the people being engaged.

Summary of public engagement activities

The Impact Statement must describe the proponent’s public engagement activities regarding the project, including:

• efforts made to distribute project information and materials;
• where and how consultations were held;
• the persons, organizations and diverse population groups consulted; and
• efforts made to collect and incorporate community knowledge and to engage diverse population groups in support of the GBA Plus.

Analysis and response to questions, comments and issues raised

The Impact Statement must:

• provide a summary of key issues which were raised through engagement with the public, including related to the adverse federal effects of the project and relevant disproportionate effects on diverse population groups, and how they were addressed in the Impact Statement or a rationale where they have not;
• describe how questions and comments raised by the public influenced the design of the project, mitigation measures or the follow-up program; and
• provide details and commitments regarding how the public will be kept involved should the project proceed, such as public involvement in the follow-up program, including monitoring.

Change to the project that may be caused by the environment

The Impact Statement must:

• describe how environmental conditions, including natural disturbance regimes (e.g. fire, floods, droughts, pests) and natural hazards (e.g. landslide/terrain hazards, severe or extreme weather conditions), could adversely affect the project. This would include credible external events for which the resulting effects on VCs could be major without careful management, considering different probability patterns (e.g. 5-year flood versus 100-year flood) and range of potential future climate scenarios;
• describe known and relevant trends in meteorological events, weather patterns or physical changes in the environment that are expected to result from climate change over the life of the project;
• describe the climate data, projections and related information used to identify expected trends due to climate change. Incorporate this information into baseline conditions, as relevant, as well as into the assessment of effects to VCs where they could be contributing or complicating factors for malfunctions or accidents (e.g. increased risk of forest fires);
• identify any areas of potential wind or water erosion;
• as applicable, describe the effects seismic events would have on facilities and specify the soil movement parameters that will be used with the probability of occurrence (e.g. 2% in 50 years) and the best practice codes and guides that are or will be used (e.g. National Building Code of Canada 2020, CAN/CSA-Z662 standard); and
• provide details of planning, design and construction strategies intended to minimize adverse effects of the environment on the project. Include a description of the project’s climate resilience and how the impacts of climate change have been integrated into the project design and planning throughout the life of the project.

Potential malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection to the project

Major effects could be caused by the failure of certain works resulting from malfunctions (i.e. works do not operate as intended) or from accidents (i.e. human error), including in cases where events resulting from effects of the environment on the project are a contributing or complicating factor (e.g. flooding, earthquake, landslide, forest fire). Malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project must be described (even if unlikely to occur) and, where relevant, their effects on each VC must be assessed. For projects that include marine shipping or navigation, the proponent is encouraged to review the Navigation Safety Assessment Process voluntary National Guidelines and work collaboratively with IAAC, Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard to consider the merit for integrating the Navigation Safety Assessment Process studies within the Impact Statement.

The Impact Statement must:

• identify potential malfunctions or accidents and their likelihood, at each project phase, considering the design and lifespan of project components, complicating factors such as weather or external events, and the potential for vandalism, sabotage or other malicious acts;
• describe the methodology used to identify potential malfunctions or accidents and their likelihood, including definitions for classifications of likelihood, consequence and risk (e.g. information sources, recognized risk assessment methodology, professional expertise, similar project, participants’ input);
• describe for each identified malfunction or accident, including worst-case scenarios and lower-consequence scenarios:
  • potential consequences focusing on adverse federal effects and their effect pathways. The proponent must incorporate these effects into the effect assessment for each VC and for impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights, as relevant,
  • failure mode(s),
  • quantity, mechanism, rate, form and characteristic of contaminants, emissions and other materials released or discharged into the environment,
  • influence of local and regional terrain, topography and weather conditions (e.g. difficult access for interventions),
  • as applicable, modelling for any contaminants spilled or released indirectly into water or air,
  • locations of sensitive receptors (e.g. humans, fish and fish habitat),
  • timing related to sensitive receptors (e.g. migration and nesting periods of migratory birds, spawning periods for fish, hunting season), and
  • impact on critical infrastructure (e.g. ability and capacity of drinking water treatment plants or facilities to treat water sources affected by accidental releases from the project);
• provide environmental sensitivity mapping that identifies site-specific conditions and sensitive receptors adjacent to project activities, including shores, streams and wetlands frequented by fish and/or migratory birds, and likely routes to them. Shoreline classification surveys and mapping must be conducted along major waterways where large spills are possible;
• describe safeguards to avoid and prevent malfunctions or accidents, including project design choices and operational considerations such as engineering, monitoring and management systems, safety and risk reduction standards; and
• describe the emergency response to the identified malfunctions or accidents to minimize their potential consequences including:
  • emergency preparedness, response systems, arrangements, plans and/or coordination with the responsible response organizations,
  • the role of the proponent in the response,
  • response strategies and any integration of response operations into an incident management system (for example, the Response Command System, Incident Command System),
  • emergency response training and exercise programs, including participation of impacted Indigenous groups, and
  • emergency communication plans that would provide emergency instructions to surrounding communities, including Indigenous groups.

Assessment methodology

The assessment methodology below outlines the steps that must be applied to the assessment of each Valued Component (VC) identified in the project-specific TISG unless the project-specific TISG indicate otherwise. The assessment should be based on likely effect pathways from specific project components or activities to the VC, with key issues assessed in-depth and applying the precautionary principle where there is uncertainty. The proponent is encouraged to leverage existing information as well as the requirements and the means (e.g. regulatory frameworks) of other jurisdictions in assessing and mitigating effects on VCs.

Spatial and temporal boundaries

Appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries must be established to describe the baseline conditions and to assess likely effects on each VC and on Indigenous rights.

Spatial boundaries

The Impact Statement must:

• describe the Project Area (PA), defined as the project footprint including all temporary and permanent areas associated with the project, and alternatives considered;
• describe the relevant spatial boundaries for each VC and for Indigenous rights and provide a rationale, considering:
  • the Local Study Area (LSA), defined as the area beyond the project footprint where project effects or impacts may extend,
  • the Regional Study Area (RSA), defined as the larger region delineated by ecological, social, economic or other appropriate boundaries, including where cumulative effects may occur, and that may extend beyond Canada’s jurisdiction;
  • the location of potential receptors, including any relevant movement pattern,
  • connections between VCs and between VCs and Indigenous rights,
  • Indigenous Knowledge, community knowledge, and scientific evidence, and
  • geographic extent of effects of past, existing and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities;
• show the spatial boundaries on maps to clearly illustrate the predicted geographic extent of changes to the environment as visual tools to support engagement and consultation with the public and Indigenous groups (i.e. zone of influence maps with defined boundaries); and
• identify where spatial boundaries may extend to areas that are on federal lands, in a province other than the one where the project is being carried out, and outside Canada.

Temporal boundaries

The Impact Statement must:

• describe the temporal boundaries for each VC and provide a rationale for each boundary, considering:
  • schedule of all phases of the project,
  • temporal extent of effects from the project and of impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights
  • past conditions and historical context,
  • Indigenous Knowledge, community knowledge and scientific evidence,
  • timing of past, existing and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities and of their effects, and
  • boundaries will generally be larger for cumulative effects, and may extent beyond the lifecycle of the project.

Baseline conditions

Baseline conditions are the existing conditions prior to the project, including how historical, past or existing projects and activities have already affected the conditions, and must be established in a manner and at a level of detail relevant to predict the likely effects of the project on each VC.

For baseline conditions of each VC, the Impact Statement must:

• describe existing baseline conditions and connections among VCs to support reliable analyses, estimates, extrapolations and/or predictions possible;
• describe changes in the baseline conditions that are likely to occur in the future, if the project were not carried out, including future changes due to climate change, or specify if changes are not likely;
• describe data sources and data collection methods, including the use of existing or historical information and any sampling, survey and research protocols, modelling methods, software used, any assumptions and any statistical estimates of predicted value and variance;
• show that the data sources used are representative of conditions within the established spatial and temporal boundaries and account for natural variability, especially if surrogate data from representative sites are used rather than specific measurements at the project site;
• where GBA Plus is applied, show how disaggregated data by relevant various population groups (e.g. gender, age, location) have been used;
• indicate where baseline data gaps or uncertainty in baseline conditions exist and any steps taken to address these;
• describe how Indigenous Knowledge, community knowledge and scientific evidence were considered in determining baseline conditions;
• where the VC includes a species at risk that is listed under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) that is likely to be affected by the project:
  • provide the common and scientific name of the species and, if applicable, its status on Schedule 1 of SARA, and availability of a recovery strategy, action plan or management plan,
  • provide information and/or mapping at an appropriate scale for species presence and critical areas such as residences, movement corridors, areas of highest concentration, identified or proposed critical habitat and/or recovery habitat. If applicable, differentiate between federal and non-federal lands,
  • identify critical periods (e.g. denning, rutting, spawning, calving, breeding, roosting), and
  • describe applicable threats and conservation goals outlined in the recovery strategy.

Mitigation measures

The Impact Statement must identify mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would eliminate, reduce, control or offset adverse effects within federal jurisdiction, as well as direct or incidental adverse effects (collectively referred to as adverse federal effects). The proponent is encouraged to follow the mitigation hierarchy in order of priority by exhausting feasible mitigation measure options at each level before moving to the next – prioritizing to eliminate, then to reduce, control and, as a last resort, offset adverse federal effects. If an offset is considered, the proponent should prioritize replacement and restoration on-site over compensation at another location. The proponent should focus on mitigation measures required to avoid significant adverse federal effects or to achieve the predicted extent of significance.

The Impact Statement must:

• for each effect pathway to an adverse federal effect on each VC likely to be significant (in the absence of mitigation measures), including effect pathways from malfunctions or accidents and interactions between effects, describe the proposed mitigation measure(s), including as applicable:
  • mitigation measures that are part of the project design and that are required to achieve the predicted extent of significance of adverse federal effects,
  • mitigation measures that will contribute to or ensure the management of adverse federal effects through federal, provincial, territorial, regional or municipal legislative or regulatory frameworks (such as regulations, approvals, permits, programs, environmental protection plans, environmental management systems, and complementary measures). Where available, provide copies of correspondence from any jurisdiction that will be implementing mitigation measures regarding how they will be implemented and/or enforced,
  • relevant standard mitigation measures from IAAC’s list of standard mitigation measures, or
  • new or innovative mitigation measures to mitigate complex project-specific adverse federal effects.
• describe how the mitigation measures may also address adverse impacts on Indigenous rights and, if necessary, describe any additional measures to address adverse impacts on Indigenous rights;
• document the collaboration and perspectives of Indigenous groups on mitigation measures and on any additional measures to address adverse impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights or to enhance the benefits for Indigenous Peoples, including:
  • how the proponent has addressed the suggestions and recommendations from impacted Indigenous groups,
  • how Indigenous Knowledge was considered,
  • how the timing of Indigenous activities on the land was considered (e.g. schedule of project activities), and
  • the mechanisms through which collaboration with Indigenous Peoples to implement the measures will occur;
• describe any differentiated mitigation measures, or additional measures, for each Indigenous group;
• describe whether and how GBA Plus resulted in differentiated mitigation measures, or any additional measures, for diverse population groups so that adverse effects do not fall disproportionately on specific groups, including Indigenous groups. The proponent is encouraged to develop mitigation measures in collaboration with impacted Indigenous groups and communities, including diverse population groups that may be differentially impacted;
• where applicable, describe any environmental protection plan(s) or environmental management systems for the project through which the proponent will implement the specific mitigation measures or additional measures;
• if no mitigation measure is proposed for an effect pathway to an adverse federal effect on a VC likely to be significant, provide an explanation, including any reasons why mitigation is not possible;
• with the permission of agreement signatories, note if any impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights are addressed through an impact benefit agreement with an Indigenous group; and
• provide a table listing all mitigation measures essential to ensure the project will not result in significant adverse federal effects, or to reduce their extent of significance (to low or moderate significance), and any additional measures to address impacts on Indigenous rights and, for each measure:
  • identify the VC(s) and effect pathway(s), or the impact, that the measure addresses,
  • identify the measure as a specific commitment that clearly describes how the proponent intends to implement it. Measures are to be specific (including when and where it applies), achievable, measurable (identify quantifiers or thresholds) and verifiable, and described in a manner that avoids ambiguity in intent, interpretation and implementation. Specify and justify where implementation of the measure would be triggered by a pre-established quantifier or threshold,
  • provide available evidence of the effectiveness of the measure, including quantifying to what extent it would eliminate, reduce, control or offset significant adverse federal effect(s), and based on relevant scientific literature, best management practices, government standards or guidance and/or successful implementation in similar situations. The proponent is also encouraged to share the evidence available with Indigenous groups. Uncertainty on effectiveness must be considered in the residual effects assessment and inform measures included in the follow-up program, and
  • for mitigation measures or commitments to avoid or lessen effects to species at risk listed under Schedule 1 of SARA that are likely to be affected by the project, describe how the mitigation measure is consistent with applicable recovery strategies, action plans, and management plans.

Residual effects assessment

After considering the technically and economically feasible mitigation measures, the Impact Statement must assess the likely residual adverse federal effects as well as impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights based on the likely effect pathways from project components and activities to the relevant VC, including effect pathways resulting from potential malfunctions or accidents and interactions between effects. Residual effects are changes to the environment or to the health, social or economic conditions, and the positive and negative consequences of these changes, that are likely to be caused by the carrying out of the project after mitigation measures have been implemented.

The Impact Statement must:

• describe residual effects in the context of the baseline conditions and based on a conceptual model illustrating the connections among VCs, including by using figures and/or tables. Describe the method used and assumptions made. If a general rather than detailed description of effects is provided, provide a rationale (e.g. application of standard or proven mitigation measures would lead to no or minimal residual effects). If a quantitative estimate is provided, specify the model used, parameters, margins of errors, as well as relevant model calibration, validation and performance metrics;
• describe the likelihood of effects occurring, including methods and rationale;
• where residual effects are not likely to occur following the application of mitigation measures (e.g. common effect mitigated through a standard mitigation measure), provide rationale and supporting information;
• where the VC includes a species at risk that is listed under Schedule 1 of SARA, describe likely effects to the species (e.g. number of individuals killed, harmed, harassed), its residences (e.g. number of residences damaged, destroyed, permanently altered, disrupted) and its critical habitat (e.g. number of hectares damaged, destroyed, permanently altered, disrupted) based on likely effect pathways and information in applicable recovery strategies, action plans and management plans. Provide a rationale where effects are not likely or where the measures that will be taken to avoid or lessen the likely adverse effects and to monitor them will be implemented by another jurisdiction;
• indicate where predictions may be affected by climate change or other relevant temporal changes in baseline conditions (e.g. demographic or health trends, natural disturbances regime, cultural changes) and describe how relevant scenarios (e.g. changes in climate extremes) affect the predictions;
• describe relevant perspectives and concerns from Indigenous groups and other participants;
• describe where and how Indigenous Knowledge, community knowledge and scientific evidence were considered in assessing residual effects; and
• provide a conclusion on residual effects for each VC, as well as impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights.

Cumulative effects assessment

The Impact Statement must assess the project’s likely cumulative adverse federal effects as well as impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights. Cumulative effects are changes to the environment or to the health, social and economic conditions, that are likely to result from the project’s residual effects in combination with the effects of other projects and physical activities that have been or will be carried out.

For adverse federal effects on VCs and impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights, the Impact Statement must:

• identify the VCs where residual effects are likely or where there is uncertainty, ensuring to include all impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights where Indigenous groups anticipate residual effects;
• identify the other past, existing and reasonably foreseeable projects or activities with potential effects on the VCs that could interact with the residual effects of the project;
• describe the cumulative effects on the identified VCs as the likely residual effects of the project in combination with the other identified projects and activities (additive, synergistic, compensatory, and masking effects), including relevant methods and assumptions;
• provide a rationale for any excluded VC (e.g. residual effects are not likely to occur or not likely to interact with effects from other projects or activities);
• describe how Indigenous Knowledge, community knowledge, scientific evidence as well as relevant perspectives and concerns from Indigenous groups and other participants were considered;
• identify any additional mitigation measures specific to cumulative effects and, where measures to mitigate cumulative effects are beyond the control of the proponent, identify parties that have authority to mitigate the effects, how the proponent will work with other parties and summarize any commitments or complementary measures by other parties; and
• provide a conclusion on cumulative effects for each relevant VC and impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights.

Extent to which likely adverse federal effects are significant

For likely residual and cumulative adverse federal effects on VCs, the Impact Statement must:

• describe the effect using benchmarks such as standards, guidelines, objectives or descriptors, where they exist, as well as criteria most appropriate for the effect such as magnitude, geographic extent, timing, duration, frequency, reversibility, social and ecological contexts, and uncertainty;
• provide a rationale for the choice of criteria informed by the perspectives of Indigenous groups and other participants, Indigenous Knowledge, community knowledge and scientific evidence; and
• characterize the extent of significance on a scale of not significant; low, moderate or high significance.

Follow-up program

A follow-up program is a program for verifying the accuracy of the impact assessment and determining the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Monitoring is a key part of a follow-up program, which entails collecting the information necessary to verify the accuracy of the predictions related to adverse federal effects and determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to decide whether new or modified actions are required to protect VCs.

For adverse federal effects on VCs, the Impact Statement must:

• identify VCs that would be included in the follow-up program, including a rationale for why they are included or not, considering the extent to which the likely residual and cumulative effects are significant, including associated uncertainty, and a description of how Indigenous Knowledge, community knowledge and input from relevant authorities and other interested parties have informed the selection;
• where the VC includes a species at risk that is listed under Schedule 1 of SARA and that is likely to be affected by the project, as applicable describe how the follow-up program is consistent with applicable recovery strategies, action plans, and management plans;
• describe the opportunities, including funding opportunities and engagement structure, for the involvement of Indigenous groups identified in the IEPP in the development and implementation of the follow-up program and its associated monitoring activities; and
• provide a table that describes, for each VC included in the follow-up program:
  • the impact predictions and/or mitigation measures that would be evaluated through the follow-up program,
  • the actions the proponent proposes to take if monitoring results show that the impact predictions are not accurate and/or the mitigation measures are not effective,
  • preliminary information (e.g. conceptual or presented as options) on:
    • the proposed monitoring methodology, including a description of how Indigenous Knowledge, community knowledge and input from relevant authorities and other interested parties have informed the choice of the proposed methodology, and
    • the party responsible for the implementation of the monitoring program and the system of accountability,
  • if applicable, whether and how disproportionate effects identified in the GBA Plus would be addressed.

If the proponent considers that existing or anticipated monitoring activities required through other regulatory instruments would provide the data necessary to achieve the objectives of the follow-up program for a particular VC, the Impact Statement must include a justification for the use of data from these other monitoring activities.

The proponent should consider the use of adaptive management to address uncertainties associated with impact predictions or the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Adaptive management does not eliminate the need to provide sufficient information to assess effects to VCs and identify mitigation measures.

Uncertainty and bias

Where uncertainty or bias may meaningfully impact conclusions (including those on the estimates of baseline conditions, effectiveness of mitigation measures, residual effects, cumulative effects, the extent of significance of likely residual and cumulative adverse federal effects and requirements for the follow-up program), the Impact Statement, in reporting its assessment and conclusion on each VC, must:

• describe the major sources of uncertainty, such as uncertainty arising from:
  • limitations on data accuracy, precision, completeness and reliability,
  • environmental variability, including spatiotemporal variability,
  • extrapolations from other contexts (e.g. baseline conditions are extrapolated from other locations, time periods, populations or communities),
  • extrapolations from proxy measures or indicators, and
  • model limitations arising from incomplete or imperfect knowledge of the structure or function of the system being modelled;
• describe the major sources of bias such as:
  • selection bias resulting in non-representative sample populations,
  • confounding bias arising from inadequate control of factors that may influence project effects,
  • measurement bias associated with the methods used to establish baseline conditions,
  • detection bias in monitoring or surveillance data,
  • outcome reporting bias or publication bias when relying on external studies or scientific publications, and
  • observer, confirmation, performance, or interpretation bias by those conducting or interpreting studies;
• provide a quantitative [lower bound, upper bound] (where possible) or qualitative estimate of the magnitude of uncertainty, and/or of the direction and magnitude of bias, and describe how it impacts the conclusions for each VC. If no estimate was possible, provide a rationale;
• describe approaches that were used or could be used to reduce sources of uncertainty or bias (e.g. additional data collection or research), as well as any legislative or regulatory framework that will manage uncertainty or bias (e.g. adaptive management imposed by a provincial regulation); and
• describe how the precautionary principle was applied and any precautionary approaches that have been used in the effects assessment or in the development of mitigation measures.

Impact Statement Summary

The proponent must provide a stand-alone plain language summary of the Impact Statement in English and French. The summary must contain sufficient details for the reader to understand the project and its adverse federal effects and impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights, including maps illustrating the project location and key project components. The summary provides an opportunity for the proponent to demonstrate through a plain-language narrative how it addressed issues raised, notably those raised by Indigenous groups and the public. The proponent is also encouraged to include visual tools to illustrate the predicted geographic extent of changes to the environment (e.g. zone of influence maps with defined boundaries) as well as relevant tables listing the mitigation measures and the follow-up program.

The Impact Statement Summary, must describe:

• residual and cumulative adverse federal effects, and the mitigation measures to address them;
• impacts on Indigenous Peoples and their rights, and the mitigation measures or any additional measures to address them;
• where applicable, proposed enhancements to increase positive effects from the project;
• whether the residual and cumulative adverse federal effects caused by the carrying out of the project are likely to be, to some extent, significant and, if so, the extent to which they are significant;
• where the proponent is of the view that the likely effects of the project would contribute to Canada’s environmental obligations and/or commitments in respect of climate change, the information to substantiate this view;
• if applicable, the extent to which the effects that are likely to be caused by the project contribute to sustainability; and
• the follow-up program.