 This is Jim. His company is planning to build a backcountry lodge in a forested area of provincial Crownland. Government reviewers decided his application had inadequate information on effects of the project on environmental values, like grizzly bears in their habitat. First Nations and local stakeholders raised the same concerns. Using the environmental mitigation policy as his guide, who with the help of Cathy, a qualified environmental professional, Jim gathers the information needed to explain to government, First Nations and stakeholders how environmental values will be considered during the lifetime of the project. First Cathy determines which environmental values and components may be affected. She quantitatively evaluates the project's impact on all environmental components and concludes that the lodge will likely impact grizzly bear berry feeding habitat. She then follows the mitigation hierarchy and considers all possible measures to avoid predicted impacts, minimize them and restore impacted habitat on site. Jim can avoid impacts on grizzly bear berry feeding habitat by building the lodge in a different location, but the other locations will impact other values. Next, Jim and Cathy look at minimizing the impact by merging the lodge with other buildings to reduce the project's total footprint. Nonetheless, there's still some predicted loss of berry feeding habitat. Cathy recommends the lodge be closed during the fall berry season to reduce the impact of the lodge on the bears and minimize the potential for bear-human conflict near the lodge. She also looks at options to restore affected habitat and determines that Jim should not plant foods that bears eat close to the lodge and instead plant non-edible native species. Next, Cathy determines that there will be a residual impact on the berry feeding habitat component even after all mitigation measures are implemented. Restoring an old logging road 10 kilometers away is identified as an off-site, offset project to counteract the residual impact. Following the environmental mitigation procedures, Cathy factors in timeliness, uncertainty and risk to determine an appropriate offset ratio. And that is, more habitat will need to be restored than will be impacted because it may take a few years before the restoration work is finished and the habitat becomes functional for the bears. In addition, Jim's company commits to funding maintenance and monitoring of the offset to ensure the restoration project is meeting expectations. In his application, he describes all mitigation measures considered, those that will be implemented and a rationale for his decisions. By applying the Environmental Mitigation Policy and Procedures, all decision makers fully understand the predicted impacts of the project on environmental values and are satisfied that the right mitigation measures are in place. First Nations and stakeholders are also assured their concerns are addressed. Jim's application is quickly approved and he's able to start his project swiftly. To learn more about the Environmental Mitigation Policy, visit us online.