While I was pleasantly…

While I was pleasantly surprised to learn of the >1:1 offset policy in my perusal of the development proposal, I am nonetheless very concerned that insufficient ecological inventory of the land in question has been conducted. Habitats, ecosystems, ecosystem services and the species that call these regions home are not, inherently, interchangeable.

I am concerned that little to no consultation with population ecologists or ecological economists has occurred during this proposal process, and that the removal of these regions from Greenbelt designation could place ecosystems and their inhabitants at a level of risk that is not compensated for by the addition of the Paris tracts.

Before any development occurs, comprehensive biodiversity surveys must be conducted to determine exactly how much is at risk if this project is approved, and whether there are species or microsystems in this region that are comparatively irreplaceable.

This country has been failing miserably in its aspiration to fulfilling its UNSDG commitments and this project only highlights the fact that we continue to persist in the erroneous perspective that habitats are replaceable, or that their value is interchangeable with, or secondary to, economic growth.

I implore you to reconsider the redesignation of these lands on the basis that population surveys either have not been conducted, or have not been shared with the public such that other independent experts may evaluate this data; that it represents a net loss when all factors are taken into consideration; that it represents not only a loss of potentially unidentified at-risk species and habitats, but also the loss of ecological corridors and other public goods. Until comprehensive comparative data on biodiversity present can be delivered publicly and evaluated by nonpartisan experts, this project absolutely should not be approved.