PROJECT: Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel (Revell Site)
REFERENCE: IAAC Project 88774
SUBJECT: Integration of Monarch Butterfly Residence Protections into Vegetation, Wetland, and Community Collaboration Mandates

We respectfully submit this formal intervention regarding the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel (88774) at the Revell Site.

This submission identifies what we believe are material gaps in the treatment of species at risk under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), specifically in relation to the Monarch butterfly and its obligate dependence on milkweed (Asclepias spp.).

The Guidelines, as currently drafted, do not adequately integrate legal protections associated with SARA-listed species, particularly in relation to habitat function, vegetation classification, hydrological dependency, and community-based ecological knowledge systems.

This submission provides line-specific amendments and interpretive clarifications required to ensure that the Guidelines are legally sufficient, ecologically defensible, and consistent with federal obligations under SARA Sections 2(1) and 33.

We respectfully request that IAAC incorporate the enclosed amendments into the final Guidelines to prevent foreseeable non-compliance risks and ensure that impact assessment processes fully account for species at risk residence protection requirements.

I. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL CONTEXT

We submit this regulatory intervention to address deficiencies within the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines (hereafter "the Guidelines") for the Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project (88774) at the Revell Site. 

As currently drafted, the Guidelines fail to reconcile environmental and integrated impact assessment requirements with the strict legal prohibitions enacted under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), specifically regarding the 2023 up-listing of the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) to Endangered status on SARA Schedule 1.

Our intervention focuses on the omission of specific protections for milkweed (Asclepias spp.), the obligate host plant for the Monarch. Federal policy, as articulated in the Canada Gazette (Part I, Vol. 157, No. 19, May 13, 2023), establishes that because the Monarch depends entirely on milkweed for reproduction, occupied milkweed plants constitute a legally protected "residence" under SARA. Accordingly, any destruction, alteration, or functional impairment of milkweed during periods of occupancy constitutes presumptive destruction of a SARA-defined residence unless explicitly authorized under a Section 73 permit.

Under Section 2(1) of SARA, a residence is defined as a “dwelling-place… that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life cycles, including breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, feeding or hibernating.” Furthermore, Section 33 of SARA strictly mandates that “no person shall damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of a wildlife species that is listed as an endangered species.”

If the Guidelines are not amended to explicitly reflect this legal reality, the resulting framework may permit activities that are not compliant with federal law during the site preparation, construction, and operation phases at the Revell Site.

II. REGULATORY CONFLICT REGARDING VEGETATION AND "WEED" CLASSIFICATION (LINE 911)

We draw immediate attention to the directive at Line 911, which currently requires the proponent to "describe any weed species, other invasive species and introduced species of concern."

In agricultural and municipal contexts, milkweed has historically and colloquially been classified as a "weed." If the proponent interprets Line 911 using standard industrial vegetation management paradigms, milkweed stands within the Revell Site footprint and along its access corridors may be targeted for eradication via mechanical clearing or herbicide application.

The Guidelines must acknowledge the inter-species diversity of the genus Asclepias in the Boreal Shield. Several Asclepias species occur within Northwestern Ontario, including Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), Oval-leaf Milkweed (Asclepias ovalifolia), Green Milkweed (Asclepias viridiflora), and Whorled Milkweed (Asclepias verticillata). These species occur across distinct habitat types including disturbed uplands, wetland margins, sandy soils, and rocky outcrops, and therefore cannot be treated as a uniform vegetation class for management purposes.

Because milkweed dies back with frost, it is only present above ground during the precise window when Monarchs are migrating and reproducing in Northwestern Ontario (approximately mid-May through October, subject to interannual climatic variation). The destruction of milkweed during this period would kill or harm eggs, caterpillars, or chrysalises, directly violating SARA Section 33.

We formally request that Line 911 be amended to explicitly carve out native milkweed species and eliminate regulatory ambiguity. The directive must be restructured to state:

“The proponent shall identify and differentiate all native milkweed species (including but not limited to Asclepias syriaca, Asclepias incarnata, Asclepias ovalifolia, Asclepias viridiflora, and Asclepias verticillata) from invasive or noxious weed species. Native milkweed shall not be classified, managed, or removed as a weed. The proponent must demonstrate a habitat-specific survey methodology that accounts for the distinct ecological niches of these species across the Revell Site, Local and Regional Study Areas.”

Failure to include this clarification creates a foreseeable and preventable pathway to non-compliance through routine vegetation management practices.

III. WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT AND HYDROLOGICAL DEPENDENCE (LINES 915–922)

The Revell Site, Local and Regional Study areas are situated in a complex boreal transition zone characterized by extensive wetlands. Lines 915 and 916 require the proponent to "quantify, describe and map wetlands (e.g., fens, marshes, peat lands, bogs) within the local and regional study area."

Crucially, Line 919 requires the assessment of “wetland habitat that provides important functions for species at risk,” while Line 922 requires an assessment of the “current level of disturbance.” We submit that Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) is highly dependent on the specific hydrological regimes of fens, bogs, marshes, and riparian margins present at the Revell Site. In addition, several Asclepias species occur within Northwestern Ontario, including Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), Oval-leaf Milkweed (Asclepias ovalifolia), Green Milkweed (Asclepias viridiflora), and Whorled Milkweed (Asclepias verticillata), each occupying distinct ecological niches across wetland margins, uplands, sandy soils, and Boreal Shield microhabitats. Therefore, the mapping of these wetlands cannot simply be a spatial exercise; it must be a functional evaluation of Monarch carrying capacity and residence viability.

If the construction of the DGR surface facilities, shaft sinking, or road expansions results in the dewatering, drawdown, redirection, or contamination of adjacent fens and marshes, the resulting desiccation or ecological alteration will destroy Swamp and Common Milkweed populations. 

The destruction of this plant life via hydrological alteration constitutes the destruction of a SARA-protected residence, even if the area is not mechanically cleared. Functional habitat loss resulting from hydrological change must therefore be treated equivalently to direct vegetation removal in impact assessment and significance determinations.

We request that the Guidelines under Lines 915–922 explicitly direct the proponent to:

• Model how repository-induced changes to surface water and groundwater regimes will impact the survivability, distribution, and reproductive function of Asclepias species across wetland classes;
• Assess indirect and cumulative effects of hydrological alteration on milkweed persistence and Monarch occupancy;
• Treat hydrologically mediated loss of milkweed as a direct impact to a SARA-defined residence under Line 919.

Without this integration, the assessment framework fails to capture one of the most probable pathways of legally significant impact.

IV. MANDATORY COMMUNITY INTEGRATION IN BASELINE STUDIES (LINES 1276–1281)

The identification of "habitually occupied" residences cannot be achieved through proponent-led, high-level aerial surveys or limited-duration, opportunistic seasonal field sweeps. 

Lines 1276–1279 state that the proponent “should work with” a defined group of municipalities, local services boards, and self-identifying communities, including the Township of Ignace, City of Dryden, Municipality of Sioux Lookout, Municipality of Machin, Village of Wabigoon Local Services Board, Melgund Local Services Board, City of Kenora, Municipality of Red Lake, Township of Ear Falls, Township of Pickle Lake, and Township of Sioux Narrows-Nestor Falls, as well as local peoples. Lines 1280–1281 further establish that the proponent “must consider” Indigenous Nations and communities when fulfilling the requirements of Section 7 and Section 8.3.2.

In the absence of this clarification, the baseline data collected under the Guidelines may be materially incomplete for the purposes of assessing effects on species at risk and their residences under the Species at Risk Act.

However, the phrase “should work with” is not defined within the Guidelines and lacks procedural, methodological, and evidentiary specificity. As written, it does not require meaningful participation in the development of baseline data, nor does it ensure that local ecological knowledge is integrated into the core technical studies that underpin the assessment. The absence of clear direction creates a significant risk that the proponent may rely on procedural consultation alone—such as meetings, notifications, or passive engagement—while excluding communities from substantive roles in data collection and validation. This is insufficient. 

We assert that, in the context of identifying residences protected under the Species at Risk Act, including milkweed occurrences that function as habitat for the Monarch butterfly, the obligation to “work with” communities must be interpreted as a requirement for active, funded, and methodologically integrated participation in baseline studies. This includes, at minimum, the Vegetation Baseline and the Species at Risk Baseline.

The communities identified in Lines 1276–1279—along with deeply localized populations in areas such as Dyment and Borups Corners—possess observational, longitudinal, and multi-generational land-use knowledge that is essential for accurately identifying both historical and currently active milkweed stands. This knowledge is particularly critical given the seasonal emergence, spatial variability, and ecological sensitivity of milkweed as a SARA-defined residence.

We therefore request the Guidelines to clarify that “should work with” (lines 1276-1277) be changed to “must work with” and include, at minimum:

• Early-stage engagement in study co-design and survey methodology;
• Dedicated funding and logistical support for community participation;
• Direct involvement of local participants and knowledge holders in field-based identification, verification, and mapping of milkweed habitats and other species at risk indicators;
• Integration of community-derived ecological knowledge into baseline datasets and mapping outputs used for impact assessment.

Absent this clarification, the proponent may satisfy the current requirement through procedural consultation alone, resulting in incomplete identification of SARA-protected residences and undermining the scientific and legal adequacy of the assessment. 

Given the legal protections afforded under SARA, incomplete baseline identification due to inadequate community integration creates a foreseeable risk of unassessed and unmitigated impacts to protected residences, potentially resulting in non-compliance with federal law.

V. MITIGATION AND SARA PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS

Finally, to address the prohibition of harm to individuals and residences, the mitigation and reclamation sections of the Guidelines must be significantly strengthened to strictly enforce the mitigation hierarchy (Avoid, Minimize, Restore, Offset), and to ensure full compliance with SARA.

First, we require the addition of strict directives stating that no site clearing, vegetation removal, grading, or disturbance affecting identified or potential milkweed habitat may occur during the Monarch breeding and occupancy period (approximately mid-May through October, subject to climatic variation) unless explicitly authorized under a valid SARA Section 73 permit.

Second, any proposed activity that may affect milkweed must trigger a formal determination of whether a SARA permit is required prior to project execution. No activity affecting milkweed habitat shall proceed where a determination of SARA applicability has not been completed and documented.

Third, in instances where the permanent destruction of milkweed stands is proven to be absolutely unavoidable for infrastructure placement (and occurs outside the restricted window or under a SARA Section 73 permit), the Guidelines must mandate a legally binding Habitat Replacement and Offsetting Plan. The proponent cannot remove critical habitat without enforceable compensation.

We require the following directives be added to the mitigation and follow-up requirements:

Mandatory Ecological Replacement:
The proponent must be required to replace all destroyed milkweed habitat at a minimum 2:1 spatial ratio. This replacement must utilize locally sourced, native seed ecotypes (such as Swamp Milkweed, Asclepias incarnata, and Common Milkweed, Asclepias syriaca) and must be established in secure, protected areas within the Regional Study Area that are not subject to future industrial disturbance or degradation.

Integration with Site Reclamation:
Any post-construction reclamation of access roads, rail spurs, laydown areas, and facility margins must explicitly require the integration of native milkweed into revegetation seed mixes, thereby restoring and enhancing ecological connectivity within the Monarch’s northern migratory corridor.

Long-Term Functional Monitoring:
The Follow-up Program must explicitly state that the proponent is legally responsible for the ecological success of these replacement habitats. The Guidelines must mandate a long-term monitoring period (minimum 5 to 10 years) to verify not only successful establishment of milkweed populations, but also their demonstrated function as occupied residences supporting Monarch reproduction. Monitoring must include adaptive management triggers if performance targets are not met.

Cumulative Effects Requirement:
The Guidelines must require assessment of cumulative effects on regional milkweed distribution, habitat fragmentation, and Monarch migratory connectivity across both Local and Regional Study Areas, ensuring that incremental losses do not collectively result in significant degradation of residence availability.

Where uncertainty exists, the precautionary principle must be applied, and the presence of milkweed shall be treated as indicative of a potential SARA-defined residence unless demonstrated otherwise through field verification.

VI. MANDATORY AMENDMENTS TO LAND AND GEOLOGY STUDIES

Terrain and Soil Baseline (Ref: Section 11.1.1, Lines 880–905)

This section requires the proponent to describe the “physiography, geology, and soil types” of the Revell Site. The current Guidelines rely on broad-scale soil and physiographic mapping that does not capture micro-topographic variation in the Boreal Shield, including small depressions, rock outcrops, shallow soils, and localized drainage features. These features directly influence vegetation patterns and are critical to species at risk habitat suitability, including milkweed (Asclepias spp.).

We request that Line 895 be amended to require micro-terrain and fine-scale soil mapping sufficient to identify habitat suitability for native milkweed colonization and other species at risk vegetation. This must include identification of moisture retention zones, soil depth variation, organic content, and micro-drainage features relevant to ecological occupancy.

Without this resolution, the assessment cannot determine where “habitual occupancy” under SARA Section 2(1) is likely to occur.

Geochemical Characterization and Waste Rock (Ref: Section 11.1.1, Lines 900–910)

The DGR will generate large volumes of waste rock that will be stored on the surface of the Revell Site. The current Guidelines focus on structural stability but do not adequately assess geochemical runoff or long-term soil alteration.

We request an amendment to Line 904 mandating assessment of waste rock geochemistry, including pH change, metal leaching, and downstream soil contamination pathways.

This assessment must explicitly evaluate impacts on soil conditions required for Asclepias spp. establishment and persistence. Where geochemical alteration renders soils unsuitable for milkweed growth, this must be treated as functional habitat degradation and therefore potential indirect destruction of a SARA-defined residence under Sections 2(1) and 33 of the Species at Risk Act.

Land Use and “Productivity” (Ref: Section 11.3, Lines 1200–1230)

This section addresses land and resource use. The current Guidelines define land productivity primarily in terms of forestry and mineral development potential. This excludes ecological function and species at risk habitat value.

We request that Line 1215 be amended to include “Ecological Productivity for Species at Risk and Habitat Functionality.” This must require assessment of the land’s role as a migratory corridor and breeding habitat for the Monarch butterfly, and the presence and persistence of milkweed (Asclepias spp.) as a key ecological indicator.

The Revell Site must be assessed not only as a potential industrial site, but as a functioning ecological system capable of supporting SARA-protected residence conditions. “Highest and best use” must include ecological function where species at risk are present or reasonably expected to occur.

VII. CONCLUSION

The Draft Guidelines currently treat vegetation and species at risk as separate, static data points. For the Monarch butterfly, vegetation is the species’ residence. We respectfully submit that IAAC must incorporate the detailed technical and legal amendments set out in this intervention to ensure that the Guidelines do not authorize, enable, or fail to prevent contraventions of the Species at Risk Act.

Aligning the wetland evaluations (Lines 915–922), vegetation classification requirements (Line 911), and community study mandates (Lines 1276–1281) with SARA Sections 2(1) and 33 is necessary to ensure the Impact Statement for the Revell Site is legally compliant, ecologically defensible, and capable of withstanding federal environmental assessment scrutiny.

The Guidelines must be interpreted and applied in a manner that reflects the integrated nature of Species at Risk Act protections across all environmental assessment disciplines. The legal protections associated with SARA Section 33 cannot be confined solely to species-specific or “Wildlife” sections of the Guidelines, as the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is functionally dependent upon its obligate host plant, milkweed (Asclepias spp.), which constitutes its habitat and residence structure.

Accordingly, SARA-based residence protection considerations must be integrated across all relevant assessment domains, including:

Atmospheric Studies (Line 943): to address indirect effects such as dust deposition and particulate loading on milkweed physiology, which may affect larval survival and plant function;

Visual and Lighting Effects Assessment (Line 1143): to address disruption of nocturnal navigation cues and migratory orientation mechanisms;

Climate and Microclimate Studies (Section 12.0): to evaluate impacts on host plant phenology, nutritional quality, and seasonal availability;

Reclamation and Closure Planning (Line 1615): to ensure the long-term persistence, regeneration, and ecological functionality of milkweed populations as part of a sustained, multi-generational Monarch migratory corridor.

Failure to incorporate these indirect, cumulative, and functionally mediated pathways of impact into the assessment framework would result in an incomplete characterization of effects on a SARA-protected residence. Such an omission would undermine the adequacy of the Impact Statement under the precautionary principle and would not meet the standard of integrated environmental assessment required for a project of national significance.