Section 1: Assessing…

Section 1: Assessing species at risk and listing them on the Species at Risk in Ontario List

E) Evaluating a species range based on its geographic range outside of Ontario lessens the acts ability to protect a species in numerous areas across Ontario e.g. some species are isolated, at the Northern end of their range or are impacted in different ways in Ontario than outside of Ontario. In addition, species sensitivity and local adaptations impact whether a population of the same species can survive in different habitats even within Ontario (e.g. populations of Red Mulberry in Pt. Pelee vs. Niagara Escarpment) so assessing them outside of Ontario, does not speak to impacts on the species within the province. Similarly, this can result in loss of biodiversity of species in Ontario. The current act already speaks to protect individual populations in Ontario despite other populations in Ontario sufficiently safe (e.g. Lake Sturgeon, River Darter, Northern Sunfish, Caribou, Five-linked Skink-different ranks for each population). Considering species populations outside of Ontario is not needed in order to continue adequately identify appropriate species ranks.
Section 2:
A) While extending the period after a COSSARO report is received to when it is listed would allow proponents to prepare for any related restrictions, a 12 month period is too long and allows for projects to continue on without proper protections for species at risk. Instead it is proposed that a list of species be provided by COSSARO of species that will be reviewed annually, so that proponents are aware before a report is provided to the minister what species may potentially be added to the SARO list. This would allow proponents to prepare ahead of time so that once the report is received and the species is listed, transition to address the new protections of the species is considered and is smooth and with appropriate timing.
F) Broadening the qualifications of COSSARO members is supported however minimum requirements need to be in place to ensure protection of the species. Those who gain politically, socially or economically from changes in listings of the committee should be restricted from membership on the COSSARO committee.

Section 2: Defining and implementing species and habitat protections

Ai) While temporary suspension of species prohibitions for social and/or economical reasons so additional time is provided to determine the best approach to protect the species makes sense however, it is important that any new activities should also be suspended for the same reasons.
B) Species impacted by disease should not have species protection removed, unless it is determined by a qualified expert that an individual of that species is already diseased/unhealthy e.g. Butternut and Butternut canker. While some species at risk are protected for different reasons, removing species that are threatened by disease further impacts their ability to survive. Similarly, healthy individuals should be protected, especially those that show resistance so as to further provide resiliency for the species.

C) While the development of a habitat regulation is a length process, the proposal does not speak to how habitat protection will be completed in the absence of individual habitat regulations.

D) Providing the Minister the rights to make species specific habitat regulations in the absence of science and expert recommendations, impacts the ability to protect the species and allows such protection to become political rather than science based.

3. Developing species at risk recovery policies
D) Removing the requirement of posting policies, products and changes to the act from the EBR and moving them to an unidentified government website impacts the publics ability to comment and review such changes.

4. Issuing Endangered Species Act permits and agreements and developing regulatory exemptions
Creation of a Regulatory Charge and Agency
• This part of the proposed changes to the act, is very limited in detail and provides little to the protection of species and instead provides provisions for developers and municipalities to pay for the destruction of species at risk and their habitats. While it speaks to providing “reasonable alternatives” if allows for the bare minimum mitigation and therefor little protection for species at risk.
• Said agency should also be science based and un-biased and not influenced by politics or economic gain
• While the proposal speaks to a conservation trust to benefit the species, a Species at Risk Stewardship Fund and a Species at Risk Research Fund already exist and supports research and on the ground projects to improve species at risk habitat. Providing a fund that is managed by politicians does not help the protection of the species.
Additional changes related to permits etc.
C) If public notice is provided regarding listing of species in advance of providing a list to the minister (see comment Section 2A), then an additional 12 months would not be required after listing as proponents would be able to incorporate and begin mitigation prior to the official listings.