May 17, 2019 Public Input…

May 17, 2019
Public Input Coordinator
Species Conservation Policy Branch
300 Water Street
Floor 5N
Peterborough, On
K9J 3C7

Re: 10th Year Review of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act:
Proposed Changes (ERO# 013-5033)

Thank you for the opportunity to provided comments on the Proposed Changes to the Endangered Species Act. Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) provides these comments on the areas of focus as identified in the Notice on the Environmental Registry of Ontario.

1. Assessing species at risk and listing them on the Species at Risk List in Ontario List
COSSARO is a science based organized that uses the best available information to develop the species at risk list. As a result, CVC supports the automatic protection of listed species. If there is delay in the listing then the species and its habitat then there is a greater risk for population declines and habitat loss. Furthermore, if there is no automatic listing the species, the species would not be eligible for funding or programs that facilitate recovery efforts.
CVC does not support the COSSARO assessment being based on “biologically relevant geographic area”. The Endangered Species Act is based on protecting the biodiversity of Ontario. By not protecting the Species at Risk in Ontario, we are putting the biodiversity of Ontario at risk. In addition, not protecting species at the edge of their range may put the species at further risk due to climate change.
2. Defining and implementing species and habitat protections
CVC recommends that there be no de-coupling of listing species at risk from automatic protection provided under the ESA for threatened and endangered species and their habitats.
CVC would recommend that he Province should work with any affected business to find an appropriate solution when a species is added to the list that would affect that business For example, if a specific project has already been approved or is near approval, it would seem reasonable to use measures to mitigate impacts to the species rather than undertake a complete redesign. But these should be addressed as one-off exceptions rather than delaying the automatic protection.

3. Developing species at risk recovery policies
CVC recommends that there should be no change to the legal requirements to produce GRS within 9 months. The Legislated timelines are intended to ensure that the actions to recover species occurs in a timely manner. The completion of GRS needs to be appropriately resourced to ensure that the timelines are achieved.
If the Province deems an extension to the timelines would be benefical for a specific species due to complex life cycle or other issue. Then the extension should be provided for that species with a specific backstop date within which the GRS would be completed.

4. Issuing Endangered Species Act permits and agreements and developing regulatory exemptions
Although CVC is in support of Landscape Actions that can be undertaken by a Trust, this approach needs to be undertaken with a high degree caution. Some of the concerns include:
• Shifting the focus of the protection to the general species from the individual members of the species has the potential that the specific requirements of the species will not be achieved;
• Loss of local or reginal habitat and biodiversity in areas of development if the offsets are provided elsewhere;
• Establishing equivalency, additionality and monetary value of lost habitat plus overall benefit;
• Pressure to move toward a strictly cash-in-lieu approach solely for the purposes of expediency;
• With the establishment of the Trust, who is taking the responsibility for providing the offsets and overall benefit; and
• Ensuring that complete cost recovery (including monitoring and adaptive management) is achieved.

Conservation Authorities are major landholders across Ontario and are environmental agencies that actively acquire and restore lands across for ecological improvements. Under the proposed new Species at risk Conservation Trust, special consideration should be given to Conservation Authorities (and projects undertaken through or under a Conservation Authority) to be recipients of funds for dedicated species at risk recovery projects, given their mandate, regulatory framework and considerable expertise restoring lands for this very purpose.
Clarification should be provided as to whether projects undertaken by a Conservation Authority will have the ability to go through the Species Conservation Charge/ Conservation Trust process. The current wording appears to imply that only municipalities and large infrastructure developers can choose to go through this route.
5. Enforcing the Endangered Species Act
Although CVC recognizes the need to act swiftly, CVC is concerned that exempting the regulations containing Minister’s orders made for the purpose of pausing protection from the EBR posting and consultation requirement eliminates the opportunity for public comment. CVC recommends removing this exemption.

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any additional questions.

Yours truly,

Gary Murphy
Director
Planning and Development Services
Credit Valley Conservation