Focus Question 1 - Landscape…

Focus Question 1 - Landscape
-Please provide a definition of what "Conservation Agreement" would mean.
-The more approaches that are available the better to cover all options. When adding new approaches I would suggest that others ones not be removed as each situation is different.
-Municipalities may be interested in being able to set aside particular areas suitable to SAR in their jurisdictions in which proponents can then buy into or use for their offsetting areas allowing other portions of the municipalities to be developed.

Butternuts

• Unlike southern Ontario, Butternuts are locally abundant in Eastern Ontario with some sites having several hundred individuals. This includes a large number of what are classed as “Category 3” by MNRF’s current Butternut Tree Analysis Protocol for assessment butternuts. This is because trees only need to have a diameter at breast height of 20cm or larger and be within 40m of a heavily cankered tree to be classed as Category 3. However, it is very important to note that more often than not they are not truly archivable. When the “Category 3” individual is assessed by an MNRF approved archiver, the individual is usually deemed not worthy of being archived. We estimate that only 1 in 50 of our "category 3s" are considered archivable. When the tree identified as a category 3 on-site is found not to be archivable, the proponent is still required to pay 17-22K (2018 prices) per archive despite the fact that the individual was not archivable. The MNRF approved archiver uses this money to archive a surrogate tree. We suggest that any tree found to be non-archivable by the MRNF approved archiver be downgraded to a Category 2.

• The overall benefit measures for projects that impact more than ten Category 2 trees or one or more Category 3 trees are standard. Yet, this is still a process that requires permitting under the Act and signature by the Minister. This involves a large number of staff in the MNRF offices and for the developer a long delay (minimum is 18 months in the Kemptville District). Since the overall benefit measures are standard, we see no reason why this could not be done via the existing on-line registration process (Notice of Butternut Impact). This would remove the uncertainties and long delays to development and reduce the red tape associated with this permits. It would also reduce the workload of the Minister. Further, in the existing circumstances, if a permit has been obtained or the maximum number of Category 2 trees registered and another butternut tree is encountered during construction, then there can be a delay of 6 – 18 months while an updated permit is obtained. These kinds of timelines simply don’t work for construction. Not only do the contractors and the owners have certain commitments that affect their contracts and lenders, there are also several other timing windows that they are working around (in-water timing, bat roosting periods, breeding birds, reptile active season…..). As such delays just become compounded. Leading to issues with lenders. This issue would be alleviated if all butternuts could be registered on-line. You could have a longer review period on the online registrations when dealing with more than 10 Category 2s or a single Category 3. You could ask for more information such as – distance between tree and various activities (to help confirm that harm versus kill is accurate), deadlines for work etc… We’d be very willing to help work out details.

• Would government consider reducing the replacement plantings?

• There is currently no General Habitat Descriptions available for Butternuts. As a result, some District Office utilize the 25m distance rule whereas other utilize a 50m distance rule for determining whether there is a potential to harm a Butternut. The current Butternut Health Assessor guidelines states that inventories should be complete in and within 25m of any disturbances. These inconsistencies should be remedied as it leads to uncertainties.

Bobolinks/Meadowlarks

Similar to the butternuts, question the need for the maximum size for using the online registration instead of permitting.

GENERAL COMMENTS:
I understand from that the focus is on the Legislation. However, please consider the following:
- There needs to be better feedback loops from the information that is being collected by various people (consultants, researchers, government) . Since, every time that anyone completes any research involving SAR they need to get a permit from (currently MNRF) and with that permit comes a reporting requirement, this offers an excellent opportunity to create a feedback loop. Include a mandatory requirement in the report for two things: 1. Researchers should review their results in respect to the existing information and GRS and indicate whether their results supports these or not (simple check list with option for comments would suffice) and 2. What their new recommendations would be. This would provide a mechanism to help close the datagaps and give you a way to collect information and be ready for the COSSARO reviews….
-The Government Response Strategies are fine but the timelines sometimes means that you don’t have the correct information for be creating them. In these instances I would suggest that what gets published immediately is more of an information package on the species, what is known, identify the data gaps that you need filled to complete the GRS and identify threats. If this is published, I’m sure that researchers and academics will use this to help them focus their studies.

-Overall benefit doesn't always need to be fancy, sometimes just protecting the habitat in another area is enough, especially in areas that do not have tree cutting bylaws.

-The online registration process is a very good tool as are the mitigation plans. These should be continued and expanded. Mitigation plans are much more flexible and able to deal with new science than agreements or permits.