Local species and habitat…

Local species and habitat risk
• The definitions of ‘habitat’ in the SCA present a much narrower definition then that listed
in the ESA. By limiting ‘habitat’ to a species’ dwelling place and its immediate surrounding
area, important areas may no longer be protected that are crucial for foraging, dispersal,
migration, and climate resilience. This change could leave locally significant and rare
populations unprotected and reduce the scientific basis for municipal planning,restoration, and mitigation efforts. We urge the Province to ensure habitat definitions
continue to reflect the full ecological needs of species and provide guidance or mapping
to support municipal natural heritage planning. Maintaining robust habitat protections is
essential for the City to continue safeguarding biodiversity while implementing
infrastructure and land-use projects.
• Species currently protected under ESA that are absent from the proposed SCA list may
lose provincial legal safeguards, increasing risk of habitat degradation in Brampton’s
Natural Heritage System including Significant Wildlife Habitats.
• The SCA removes the statutory requirement for the province to produce recovery
strategies and provide progress reviews. Lack of provincial recovery planning limits the
scientific basis for municipal decisions and planning to recover each species. The ability
to obtain funding through programs such as Species at Risk Stewardship Program tied to
those recovery strategies will be reduced thus reducing potential funding in the City.
• Over time, Brampton may face new ‘edge’ species scenarios where species are
provincially unprotected, but municipally significant, without clear legislative triggers for
protection.
• Any decision to remove a species from the provincial protected list should not reduce
protections for populations in Brampton. If a provincial listing is changed, there should be
other protections or mitigation measures in place, backed by data showing local
populations are not at risk.
• The ESA prohibited ‘harassing’ species. Since this wording is removed under the SCA,
the City asks that disturbance related impacts to species such as nest abandonment,
altered feeding patterns, disruptions to mating or breeding, avoiding suitable habitats etc.
must still be covered through regulations or guidance.
Development and infrastructure review
• Developers and municipal staff must now determine whether a project needs registration
under SCA, federal review (e.g. under SARA), or neither which will increase complexity
and the risk of unregulated impacts on species and habitat.
• Municipal projects such as roads and stormwater infrastructure may face new or different
rules under the SCA. Some obligations under the old ESA may no longer apply, while
new requirements could be added, creating inconsistent rules and processes across
Brampton projects
The new registration system may speed up approvals, but if the provincial regulations are
not strong or site-specific, there is a risk that mitigation requirements will be generic or
insufficient to protect local biodiversity. Registration rules/guidance should be tailored to
each species and its habitat, rather than using generic guidance. Habitat definitions and
guidance should be published in a timely way, with opportunities for municipal input.
• Municipal assets (such as stormwater facilities) will need to be reviewed under both the
old ESA rules and the new SCA rules, requiring staff training, updated procedures, and
close coordination with the Province.
• The registration data will be stored provincially. The City must have timely access to this
data to track activities affecting municipal lands or nearby private properties to coordinate
inspections and bylaw enforcement.
• If municipal projects are treated the same as other ‘exempt’ activities under the SCA, the
City’s ability to impose local needs/conditions or negotiate mitigation measures could be
limited. Municipal works should remain subject to registration or permitting under the
SCA. Exceptions should only apply if City Council explicitly approves them.
Data, transparency and municipal capacity
• Without guaranteed access to the provincial registration database, the City risks being
uninformed about activities that could impact natural heritage on public or private lands.
• The Province has promised habitat maps, species occurrence data, and guidance on
habitat definitions, but timelines are unclear. Delays could hinder Brampton’s natural
heritage protection policies and ecosystem-based master planning.
• The City requests viewing access to the live provincial registration system. Advance
notice should be provided for activities on City owned and managed lands, so the City
can coordinate reviews, inspections, and mitigation.
• The removal of statutory recovery planning and reduction in provincially protected species
lists signals that recovery work is optional and shifts more responsibility to the City and
local conservation authorities, requiring Brampton to invest more in habitat protection and
monitoring that was previously supported by the Province.